EVENTS IN BRIEF[Under this heading will appear each month numerous paragraphs of general interest, relating to the prison field and the treatment of the delinquent.]Families of Prisoners Excite Discussion.—The subject of prisoner’s pay for work done during incarceration is receiving wide-spread discussion in this country. The note constantly struck is the need for support of those dependent on the imprisoned bread winner.In Rhode Island a bill has been introduced to the assembly increasing the wages of jail term offenders from 25 cents to one dollar a day.The members of the board of control of the prison at Jackson,Mich., favor a change in the method of paying the inmates employed in the binder twine plant of the institution. The present law gives the men 10 per cent of the net profits of the plant each year. Some of the evils of this arrangement are thought to be that the men have to wait too long for their pay, and that they are kept in unnecessary doubt as to the amount they shall receive. The plan of the prison board is that they shall be paid from 10 to 15 cents a day for their services.In Massachusetts the Springfield Republican, among other papers, has recently advocated the extension of the present law, providing that prisoners be paid nominal wages for the benefit of their families, to include the inmates of work houses and all places of detention. Says the Republican:“In the workhouse the convicted mis-doer is set to broom making. Why should not his family have the aid of part of such earnings? Why should not all prisoners, in all parts of the country, contribute, through state officials, to the support of their hapless families? Wife and children have not broken the law—they should not then be left to starve.”* * * * *Finds Canadian Prisons Better Than Ours.—Considerable newspaper prominence has been given to a report on Canadian prisons made recently by the Rev. Dr. John Handley, who was commissioned by the Governor of New Jersey to visit Canada and examine her prisons. The Tribune of Providence,R. I., concludes from this report that Canadian prisons are “somewhat in advance of ours in some respects.” The Tribune thusdiscusses Dr. Handley’s report:“The Canadian idea is that reformatory should be a large custodial school rather than a penal institution; that it should be removed as far as possible from the thought of felony and the disgrace that attaches to any young man or boy who has violated the law and thus become subject to a reformatory sentence. And in accordance with that idea each Canadian prison has a large farm attached, to which prisoners are sent to work. From the federal prison at Toronto, for example, at least half the prisoners are put to work on a farm where there are no surrounding walls, no regiment of guards and no rigid surveillance, and yet from which in two years only five prisoners attempted to escape.“Dr. Handley has returned to New Jersey strongly in favor of this farm idea as an aid in reformatory work. It is not, however, an altogether new idea in the States. In several of our penitentiaries men are allowed to work out of doors even a long distance away, under only a light guard, and very few have attempted to escape. The State homes, too, ordinarily have no high walls around them, and the inmates are allowed many liberties.“How far farm regulations could be applied to offenders who have been sentenced to state prison is another question, and one not easy to answer. The experiment seems to work well in Canada, however; and if farms could be utilized for the benefit of the prisoners there would not be the objection made by organized labor to most other forms of prison employment, since there is always a market for farm products and nothing that could thus be raised would affect farm wages or the prices of staple products. Moreover, much of the farm yields would go toward the maintenance of the prisoners.”* * * * *A Bibliography For The Student.—A helpful tool for the student of criminology and allied subjects has just been furnished in the form of a “bibliography on crime, its causes and prevention, criminals, punishment and reformative methods, with special reference to children,”The pamphlet is the work of Mr. Paul A. Wiebe, of Meriden,Conn., and comprises a bibliography of books, senate documents, magazine articles, circulars, addresses and the publications of various organizations, together with a brief list of German publications. The collection is not so exhaustive as to be confusing.* * * * *Tuberculosis Among Prisoners.—That 16,000 persons infected with tuberculosis are annually sent out into society by the prisons of this country is a statement attributed to Dr. J. B. Ransom,physician to Clinton Prison, New York. In the course of a recent address Dr. Ransom showed the good results flowing from the special care in New York prisons of those with tuberculosis.In a similar connection the Lincoln, (Neb.) News says:“Not long ago the statement is alleged to have been made by the warden of the western penitentiary of Pennsylvania that approximately 300 out of 1,300 inmates of that institution were suffering from tuberculosis. In private conversation, says the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, the warden of one of the eastern state penitentiaries expressed his belief that six per cent of the inmates of his institution had tuberculosis in some degree.“Only twenty-one prisons in fifteen states and territories have provided special places for the treatment of their tuberculosis prisoners and these have accommodations for only 800 patients. In three-fourths of the major prisons and in practically all of the jails of the country the tuberculosis prisoner is allowed freely to infect his fellow prisoners, very few restrictions being put upon his habits.”* * * * *A French Study of Vagrants and How To Treat Them.—An interesting classification of so-called “non-producers,” or vagabonds, has been made by Etienne Flandid, who has recently conducted a study of the criminal classes of France. M. Flandid has made his studies the basis of a report which is being considered by the French senate.He divides vagabonds into three classes. In the first class are the infirmand aged. These, he believes, should be properly clothed and fed and housed by the state or municipality. The second class contains the “accidental out-of-works.” Under M. Flandid’s recommendation these will be sent to a penal labor colony, where they will be kept and put to work until employment is found for them outside of the colony. It will be the duty of the state to seek to secure employment for them, and to notify them and release them from the colony at the earliest possible date. The third class contains the professional tramps, the fellows who do not want work and who would not accept employment if it were tendered them. This class is to be shut up in penal colonies for periods of from five to ten years. After serving the first sentence, if they do not secure employment, they will be returned to the penal colonies and kept there for life, with plenty of good, wholesome work to do. By ridding society of these three classes of people, or by providing for them in the manner stated, he believes that crime will be so greatly lessened that there will hardly be any use for the police forces, save to gather in the few vagabonds as they develop. He argues that nearly all crime is committed by one or the other of the three classes named, especially by the third class.Speaking editorially of this report, the Dayton, Ohio,Newssays:“Practically every country on earth today has its problems of the unemployed. France is not alone in the matter. Even in this country, where there is so much to be done, where conditions are better than almost anywhere else on earth, we have the three classes referred to by the Frenchman, and we have done little to improve conditions. We have our civic societies, and our reform organizations and our bodies of philanthropists. But we have not gone to the root of the matter as have the French, and we have no students devoting as much time to the study of the question as can be found in other countries. We complain much about the cost of living—as we have a right to—and we print thousands of columns about the trusts and the tariff, as is well that we should. But we are overlooking one of the real questions of economywhen we fail to study and to understand the problems presented to us in the way of the unemployed.”* * * * *Resignations Follow Criticism of Juvenile Court of Louisville, Ky.—A somewhat acute situation has developed among those interested in the work of the juvenile court and juvenile probation in Louisville, Ky. As a result of what is by some persons characterized as the courts’ “totally irresponsible methods in caring for dependent and delinquent children,” Bernard Flexner and several other members of the Juvenile Court Advisory Board have resigned their positions. The straw which broke the camel’s back was the appointment by Juvenile Judge Muir Weissinger of a probation officer who is declared not only to be unfit for such a delicate position, but also to have a noteworthy political reputation. The Social Workers’ Conference held a mass meeting on March 16, at which were adopted resolutions calling for the removal of the probation officer in question. Speakers at the meeting declared that for a year conditions in the juvenile court have been intolerable; that children have been dragged into court and brow-beaten, some have been wrongfully placed in unworthy homes, and that all efforts to do something for them have come to naught. Judge Weissinger declared that he would not remove the objectionable probation officer until better evidence that he was unfit had been adduced.* * * * *Domestic Relations Courts.—In view of the interest with which the whole country is watching the work of the domestic relations courts newly instituted in the larger cities of New York, it is important that the court’s own story of its activities be set before the public. Recently such a court was instituted in the city of Chicago. Pointing in this same direction is a recommendation contained in the 1910 report of the Boston Associated Charities that the delinquent husband and father shall be constantly under the supervision of the court during the continuance of its direction to him to pay for the maintenance of his wife and child.The domestic relations court for the Borough of Brooklyn, New York City, has put out a report of its work for thefour months ending December 31st, 1910, these being the first four months of its existence. Judge Edward J. Dooley says:“That the predictions of the opponents of a separate domestic relations court, that its organization would serve to promote more antagonism in the family, that it would tend to harass the husband, father and provident relative unnecessarily, have not been fulfilled. Statistics show that the number of cases brought herein since September 1st last, a period of four months, has been 574, which would be at the rate of 1,722 cases for the year 1910, for abandonment and non-support in the borough of Brooklyn. The number of cases of abandonment and non-support in the borough of Brooklyn for the year 1909 was 1,907, thus actually showing an apparent decrease of 185 cases of non-support for the year 1910, as compared with the year 1909.“The provisions of Chapter 168, Laws of the year 1905, of the State of New York, which provides that the abandonment and non-support of a minor child or children is made a felony and extraditable has been put in execution, and it can be said that on a meritorious case the negligent father who actually abandons and neglects to support his minor child or children will be pursued to the extreme boundaries of these United States, arrested and brought into the jurisdiction of this court to stand trial for such desertion and non-support.“No statistical information can be obtained as to the amount of money received in the magistrates courts of the borough of Brooklyn for the year 1909, but from my personal knowledge I venture to say that less than $1,000 was received therein to be applied to the benefit of neglected wives and children during the year 1909, or any year previous thereto, within the last decade. For four months, from September 1st to December 31st, 1910, inclusive, there has been paid into the hands of the probation officers of this court, the sum of $4,968.45 or at the rate of about $15,000 a year.”Something of the spirit in which the domestic relations court was conceived, and of the end which it was designed to further, may be glimpsed from the followingparagraph from Judge Dooley:“To make the improvident and negligent husband and father, as well as those who are liable for the maintenance of the dependant relatives, namely, the grandparents, parents, children, grand-children and relatives of a poor person of sufficient ability, realize the obligations that the law has cast upon them, to advise and admonish in the first instance as to their duty to their dependants, and to punish if advice be not followed, has been the rule and practice of the court. In other words, it is not a tribunal constituted for vengeance, spite, anger or petulant temperaments, to give vent to their wrath, but rather for the calm, cool and considerate treatment of each individual case in order that the greatest good may be accomplished to those entitled to its consideration and help, and that the basic foundation of the state, to wit, the family unit may be maintained if possible.”The total number of persons arraigned in the court during the four months in question, including those transferred on September 1st, 1910 from the various magistrates’ courts, was 881 only two of whom were women. Forty of these were convicted. 379 were discharged, and the cases of the remaining 462 were still pending at the close of the year. As to the nature of the offenses charged, 795 were accused of abandonment of wives and children, and 86 of failure to support poor relatives. The following table reveals some aspects of the probation system as used by the court:Number of persons placed under probationary oversight198Completed probationary period and discharged with improvement23Completed probationary period and discharged without improvement4Re-arrested and committed14Absconded or lost from oversight3Pending on probation154* * * * *Charges of “Crime Wave” Lead to Grand Jury Investigation.—In an open letter to the newspapers of the city, published during the latter part of March, Magistrate Joseph E. Corrigan declared that crime was flourishing in New York City more flagrantly than it had for years, that criminals were allowed tocarry on their work with little molestation, that the police force was demoralized and cowed, and that the responsibility for these conditions lay upon the shoulders of Mayor Wm. J. Gaynor and upon his reforms in the police administration.Within less than two weeks after the publication of this letter the grand jury was at work, under the direction of special assistants to the district attorney, upon the task of investigating these charges, in an effort to ascertain their truth, and to fix responsibility for the conditions described, in the event that those conditions were found actually to exist.Meanwhile the newspapers, public bodies and private societies, to say nothing of the general community, were engaged in an intense and aggressive discussion of the situation of the city with reference to crime, heated tempers were being displayed in more than one quarter, crimination was being met by recrimination, and only such a catastrophe as the Asch building fire could divert the attention of the city from the discussion of the “crime wave” and its causes.Magistrate Corrigan’s general charges were followed by an array of specific facts and instances, presented by himself, by some of the newspapers, and by many private individuals, including social workers. It was freely alleged that Mayor Gaynor’s doctrine of “personal liberty,” and his discouragement of “needless and unjustifiable arrests,” were responsible for the demoralization of the police force, and the consequent influx of criminals of every sort.To all this Mayor Gaynor finally entered a general and emphatic denial. He praised the police force, scouted the idea of demoralization, declared that the laws were being efficiently enforced, and characterized the whole agitation as but a periodic recurrence of a long series of similar protestations. Such outcries, he said, were as regular in their coming as is the spring marble season among boys.The grand jury investigation bids fair to be thorough. Police Commissioner Cropsey has been called upon for some extended testimony, and the district attorney has declared his intention to probe the situation to the bottom.
[Under this heading will appear each month numerous paragraphs of general interest, relating to the prison field and the treatment of the delinquent.]
Families of Prisoners Excite Discussion.—The subject of prisoner’s pay for work done during incarceration is receiving wide-spread discussion in this country. The note constantly struck is the need for support of those dependent on the imprisoned bread winner.
In Rhode Island a bill has been introduced to the assembly increasing the wages of jail term offenders from 25 cents to one dollar a day.
The members of the board of control of the prison at Jackson,Mich., favor a change in the method of paying the inmates employed in the binder twine plant of the institution. The present law gives the men 10 per cent of the net profits of the plant each year. Some of the evils of this arrangement are thought to be that the men have to wait too long for their pay, and that they are kept in unnecessary doubt as to the amount they shall receive. The plan of the prison board is that they shall be paid from 10 to 15 cents a day for their services.
In Massachusetts the Springfield Republican, among other papers, has recently advocated the extension of the present law, providing that prisoners be paid nominal wages for the benefit of their families, to include the inmates of work houses and all places of detention. Says the Republican:
“In the workhouse the convicted mis-doer is set to broom making. Why should not his family have the aid of part of such earnings? Why should not all prisoners, in all parts of the country, contribute, through state officials, to the support of their hapless families? Wife and children have not broken the law—they should not then be left to starve.”
* * * * *
Finds Canadian Prisons Better Than Ours.—Considerable newspaper prominence has been given to a report on Canadian prisons made recently by the Rev. Dr. John Handley, who was commissioned by the Governor of New Jersey to visit Canada and examine her prisons. The Tribune of Providence,R. I., concludes from this report that Canadian prisons are “somewhat in advance of ours in some respects.” The Tribune thusdiscusses Dr. Handley’s report:
“The Canadian idea is that reformatory should be a large custodial school rather than a penal institution; that it should be removed as far as possible from the thought of felony and the disgrace that attaches to any young man or boy who has violated the law and thus become subject to a reformatory sentence. And in accordance with that idea each Canadian prison has a large farm attached, to which prisoners are sent to work. From the federal prison at Toronto, for example, at least half the prisoners are put to work on a farm where there are no surrounding walls, no regiment of guards and no rigid surveillance, and yet from which in two years only five prisoners attempted to escape.
“Dr. Handley has returned to New Jersey strongly in favor of this farm idea as an aid in reformatory work. It is not, however, an altogether new idea in the States. In several of our penitentiaries men are allowed to work out of doors even a long distance away, under only a light guard, and very few have attempted to escape. The State homes, too, ordinarily have no high walls around them, and the inmates are allowed many liberties.
“How far farm regulations could be applied to offenders who have been sentenced to state prison is another question, and one not easy to answer. The experiment seems to work well in Canada, however; and if farms could be utilized for the benefit of the prisoners there would not be the objection made by organized labor to most other forms of prison employment, since there is always a market for farm products and nothing that could thus be raised would affect farm wages or the prices of staple products. Moreover, much of the farm yields would go toward the maintenance of the prisoners.”
* * * * *
A Bibliography For The Student.—A helpful tool for the student of criminology and allied subjects has just been furnished in the form of a “bibliography on crime, its causes and prevention, criminals, punishment and reformative methods, with special reference to children,”The pamphlet is the work of Mr. Paul A. Wiebe, of Meriden,Conn., and comprises a bibliography of books, senate documents, magazine articles, circulars, addresses and the publications of various organizations, together with a brief list of German publications. The collection is not so exhaustive as to be confusing.
* * * * *
Tuberculosis Among Prisoners.—That 16,000 persons infected with tuberculosis are annually sent out into society by the prisons of this country is a statement attributed to Dr. J. B. Ransom,physician to Clinton Prison, New York. In the course of a recent address Dr. Ransom showed the good results flowing from the special care in New York prisons of those with tuberculosis.
In a similar connection the Lincoln, (Neb.) News says:
“Not long ago the statement is alleged to have been made by the warden of the western penitentiary of Pennsylvania that approximately 300 out of 1,300 inmates of that institution were suffering from tuberculosis. In private conversation, says the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, the warden of one of the eastern state penitentiaries expressed his belief that six per cent of the inmates of his institution had tuberculosis in some degree.
“Only twenty-one prisons in fifteen states and territories have provided special places for the treatment of their tuberculosis prisoners and these have accommodations for only 800 patients. In three-fourths of the major prisons and in practically all of the jails of the country the tuberculosis prisoner is allowed freely to infect his fellow prisoners, very few restrictions being put upon his habits.”
* * * * *
A French Study of Vagrants and How To Treat Them.—An interesting classification of so-called “non-producers,” or vagabonds, has been made by Etienne Flandid, who has recently conducted a study of the criminal classes of France. M. Flandid has made his studies the basis of a report which is being considered by the French senate.
He divides vagabonds into three classes. In the first class are the infirmand aged. These, he believes, should be properly clothed and fed and housed by the state or municipality. The second class contains the “accidental out-of-works.” Under M. Flandid’s recommendation these will be sent to a penal labor colony, where they will be kept and put to work until employment is found for them outside of the colony. It will be the duty of the state to seek to secure employment for them, and to notify them and release them from the colony at the earliest possible date. The third class contains the professional tramps, the fellows who do not want work and who would not accept employment if it were tendered them. This class is to be shut up in penal colonies for periods of from five to ten years. After serving the first sentence, if they do not secure employment, they will be returned to the penal colonies and kept there for life, with plenty of good, wholesome work to do. By ridding society of these three classes of people, or by providing for them in the manner stated, he believes that crime will be so greatly lessened that there will hardly be any use for the police forces, save to gather in the few vagabonds as they develop. He argues that nearly all crime is committed by one or the other of the three classes named, especially by the third class.
Speaking editorially of this report, the Dayton, Ohio,Newssays:
“Practically every country on earth today has its problems of the unemployed. France is not alone in the matter. Even in this country, where there is so much to be done, where conditions are better than almost anywhere else on earth, we have the three classes referred to by the Frenchman, and we have done little to improve conditions. We have our civic societies, and our reform organizations and our bodies of philanthropists. But we have not gone to the root of the matter as have the French, and we have no students devoting as much time to the study of the question as can be found in other countries. We complain much about the cost of living—as we have a right to—and we print thousands of columns about the trusts and the tariff, as is well that we should. But we are overlooking one of the real questions of economywhen we fail to study and to understand the problems presented to us in the way of the unemployed.”
* * * * *
Resignations Follow Criticism of Juvenile Court of Louisville, Ky.—A somewhat acute situation has developed among those interested in the work of the juvenile court and juvenile probation in Louisville, Ky. As a result of what is by some persons characterized as the courts’ “totally irresponsible methods in caring for dependent and delinquent children,” Bernard Flexner and several other members of the Juvenile Court Advisory Board have resigned their positions. The straw which broke the camel’s back was the appointment by Juvenile Judge Muir Weissinger of a probation officer who is declared not only to be unfit for such a delicate position, but also to have a noteworthy political reputation. The Social Workers’ Conference held a mass meeting on March 16, at which were adopted resolutions calling for the removal of the probation officer in question. Speakers at the meeting declared that for a year conditions in the juvenile court have been intolerable; that children have been dragged into court and brow-beaten, some have been wrongfully placed in unworthy homes, and that all efforts to do something for them have come to naught. Judge Weissinger declared that he would not remove the objectionable probation officer until better evidence that he was unfit had been adduced.
* * * * *
Domestic Relations Courts.—In view of the interest with which the whole country is watching the work of the domestic relations courts newly instituted in the larger cities of New York, it is important that the court’s own story of its activities be set before the public. Recently such a court was instituted in the city of Chicago. Pointing in this same direction is a recommendation contained in the 1910 report of the Boston Associated Charities that the delinquent husband and father shall be constantly under the supervision of the court during the continuance of its direction to him to pay for the maintenance of his wife and child.
The domestic relations court for the Borough of Brooklyn, New York City, has put out a report of its work for thefour months ending December 31st, 1910, these being the first four months of its existence. Judge Edward J. Dooley says:
“That the predictions of the opponents of a separate domestic relations court, that its organization would serve to promote more antagonism in the family, that it would tend to harass the husband, father and provident relative unnecessarily, have not been fulfilled. Statistics show that the number of cases brought herein since September 1st last, a period of four months, has been 574, which would be at the rate of 1,722 cases for the year 1910, for abandonment and non-support in the borough of Brooklyn. The number of cases of abandonment and non-support in the borough of Brooklyn for the year 1909 was 1,907, thus actually showing an apparent decrease of 185 cases of non-support for the year 1910, as compared with the year 1909.
“The provisions of Chapter 168, Laws of the year 1905, of the State of New York, which provides that the abandonment and non-support of a minor child or children is made a felony and extraditable has been put in execution, and it can be said that on a meritorious case the negligent father who actually abandons and neglects to support his minor child or children will be pursued to the extreme boundaries of these United States, arrested and brought into the jurisdiction of this court to stand trial for such desertion and non-support.
“No statistical information can be obtained as to the amount of money received in the magistrates courts of the borough of Brooklyn for the year 1909, but from my personal knowledge I venture to say that less than $1,000 was received therein to be applied to the benefit of neglected wives and children during the year 1909, or any year previous thereto, within the last decade. For four months, from September 1st to December 31st, 1910, inclusive, there has been paid into the hands of the probation officers of this court, the sum of $4,968.45 or at the rate of about $15,000 a year.”
Something of the spirit in which the domestic relations court was conceived, and of the end which it was designed to further, may be glimpsed from the followingparagraph from Judge Dooley:
“To make the improvident and negligent husband and father, as well as those who are liable for the maintenance of the dependant relatives, namely, the grandparents, parents, children, grand-children and relatives of a poor person of sufficient ability, realize the obligations that the law has cast upon them, to advise and admonish in the first instance as to their duty to their dependants, and to punish if advice be not followed, has been the rule and practice of the court. In other words, it is not a tribunal constituted for vengeance, spite, anger or petulant temperaments, to give vent to their wrath, but rather for the calm, cool and considerate treatment of each individual case in order that the greatest good may be accomplished to those entitled to its consideration and help, and that the basic foundation of the state, to wit, the family unit may be maintained if possible.”
The total number of persons arraigned in the court during the four months in question, including those transferred on September 1st, 1910 from the various magistrates’ courts, was 881 only two of whom were women. Forty of these were convicted. 379 were discharged, and the cases of the remaining 462 were still pending at the close of the year. As to the nature of the offenses charged, 795 were accused of abandonment of wives and children, and 86 of failure to support poor relatives. The following table reveals some aspects of the probation system as used by the court:
* * * * *
Charges of “Crime Wave” Lead to Grand Jury Investigation.—In an open letter to the newspapers of the city, published during the latter part of March, Magistrate Joseph E. Corrigan declared that crime was flourishing in New York City more flagrantly than it had for years, that criminals were allowed tocarry on their work with little molestation, that the police force was demoralized and cowed, and that the responsibility for these conditions lay upon the shoulders of Mayor Wm. J. Gaynor and upon his reforms in the police administration.
Within less than two weeks after the publication of this letter the grand jury was at work, under the direction of special assistants to the district attorney, upon the task of investigating these charges, in an effort to ascertain their truth, and to fix responsibility for the conditions described, in the event that those conditions were found actually to exist.
Meanwhile the newspapers, public bodies and private societies, to say nothing of the general community, were engaged in an intense and aggressive discussion of the situation of the city with reference to crime, heated tempers were being displayed in more than one quarter, crimination was being met by recrimination, and only such a catastrophe as the Asch building fire could divert the attention of the city from the discussion of the “crime wave” and its causes.
Magistrate Corrigan’s general charges were followed by an array of specific facts and instances, presented by himself, by some of the newspapers, and by many private individuals, including social workers. It was freely alleged that Mayor Gaynor’s doctrine of “personal liberty,” and his discouragement of “needless and unjustifiable arrests,” were responsible for the demoralization of the police force, and the consequent influx of criminals of every sort.
To all this Mayor Gaynor finally entered a general and emphatic denial. He praised the police force, scouted the idea of demoralization, declared that the laws were being efficiently enforced, and characterized the whole agitation as but a periodic recurrence of a long series of similar protestations. Such outcries, he said, were as regular in their coming as is the spring marble season among boys.
The grand jury investigation bids fair to be thorough. Police Commissioner Cropsey has been called upon for some extended testimony, and the district attorney has declared his intention to probe the situation to the bottom.
[1]From other extracts from report of this association see REVIEW for February, 1911, page 10.[2]For other information see the March REVIEW, page 24.
[1]From other extracts from report of this association see REVIEW for February, 1911, page 10.
[2]For other information see the March REVIEW, page 24.
Transcriber's Note:Footnotes were renumbered sequentially and moved to the end of the book. Dialect, obsolete and alternative spellings were left unchanged.The following items were changed:Changed publication title to small caps in the first paragraph of the third article.Removed duplicate anchor to footnote[2]from subtitle.Added a missing endquote to text.Spelling corrections:‘orignated’ to‘originated’‘pyschopathic’ to‘psychopathic’‘centry’ to‘century’‘physican’ to‘physician’‘necessitious’ to‘necessitous’
Footnotes were renumbered sequentially and moved to the end of the book. Dialect, obsolete and alternative spellings were left unchanged.
The following items were changed:Changed publication title to small caps in the first paragraph of the third article.Removed duplicate anchor to footnote[2]from subtitle.Added a missing endquote to text.
Spelling corrections:‘orignated’ to‘originated’‘pyschopathic’ to‘psychopathic’‘centry’ to‘century’‘physican’ to‘physician’‘necessitious’ to‘necessitous’