concurrence might be accidental. It is necessary that among the diverse violations there should he not only a material identity, but above all they should be instigated by the same motive; and only then can it be said that the criminal instincts are deeply rooted in the delinquent.

Another opinion was presented relative to a different class of professionals, who renounce work and live at the expense of others, and for whom crime is a profession. All their actions are antisocial. These are without question special recidivists. There was an animated discussion on the point whether progressive increase of penalties should be obligatory on the judge. Some claimed the greatest latitude for the judge. On the other hand, it was claimed that the judge was too much influenced by limited importance of the case before him and did not consider sufficiently the criminal tendencies revealed. It is important to limit the power of the judge in a way to prevent too many short sentences, which are the principal cause of recidivism. It is better to put professional delinquents out of power to injure by eliminating them from society for a long period. A proper measure against them is sentence on indeterminate sentence. Individual characters vary, and the judge can most properly determine the character of the prisoner by his antecedents, while the law can name the number of convictions from which the offender can be named a recidivist, or a professional. These were some of the various ideas presented on this subject.

TRANSPORTATION.

The discussion of the second question in Section I, relative to transportation, was somewhat spirited and interesting. This subject was before the congress of Stockholm and St. Petersburg. It was a surprise to the congress that the Russian delegates did not defend the system-in fact, disapproved of it in many respects-and the defense rested mainly with France, which adheres to the system in theory and practice.

M. Babinet, for France, defended it. He said that transportation was not a theory; that it was a fact; that several nations had practiced it for a long time, and that it has entered into their systems of repression. He said that France had transported criminals for forty years and desired to continue the system, which was improving, and that foreign delegates should not discourage the French administration in its efforts in that direction.

The Italian members took no part in the discussion. Speaking for Germany, Dr. Starke recalled the fact that at the beginning of the century Germany, which he represented, had attempted to put transportation into practice in accordance with a convention with Russia. Since then it has definitely renounced the system, and to colonize its African possessions will only have recourse to free emigration. But the institution was violently and ably attacked by M. Prins, of Belgium. He claimed that every people who had attempted to colonize with convicts had miserably failed, notably France, in New Caledonia and Guiana, and Russia in Siberia. Only England for a time succeeded. Then the violent protests of the free colonists compelled the home Government to discontinue the system, and Australia increased remarkably in prosperity. Besides, if transportation is to an unhealthy climate, it is to a slow death. You can not send the dregs of the population to develop a colony. On the contrary, if you send convicts to a healthy climate it is no more a punishment. It is a good fortune, while it is a defiance to the honest people among whom they are sent. Why place the prison so far from home, so far from serious control? Why not follow England, and organize transportation in the interior, as at Portland, Portsmouth, Chatham, and Parkhurst? Really transportation can only be employed to prepare a new colony for emigration, and then when the country is prepared the convicts should be withdrawn. It can only be employed at great expense. A transport costs seven times more than a convict in prison, and how can charitable and preventive work be incorporated in the system? The system is not preventive of crime. The convict

colony becomes the refuge of all classes who have become compromised in the mother country, and becomes a nursery of crime. It is wise, then, not to sacrifice all to transportation, which has too often been followed by failure.

The surprise of the day came with the address of M. Spassovicz, of Russia. It was naturally expected that the Russian delegates would defend the system. For some years a public sentiment has been created, in America and England especially, against Russia on account of Siberian exiles, and the idea has been fostered that Russia was wedded to the system and persisted in its continuance and all its alleged cruelties. The intelligent student, however, in Russian affairs is aware that in the past one hundred years no country has made greater advances than Russia in prison reform, and that no country has more advanced thinkers and workers in all phases of penology than Russia. And among these no one is working more for the improvement of the prison system of Russia in Europe and Asia than M. Galkine Wraskoy, the able and humane chief of the Russian prison administration, who has been in that position the past fifteen years. He has lately returned from a long journey through Siberia and is doing all that he can to do away with Siberian transportation, in which early success is expected.

M. Spassovicz began by stating that he was not hostile to the principle of transportation. He considered the punishment as severe, intimidating, and an excellent measure for the protection of society. On the other hand, he admitted the great difficulty in removing from the convict all hope of returning to his own country. This takes away an element of reform of the first order. Russia to-day is in a peculiar condition, which must be considered. The nation has advanced rapidly, but has not reached its full development. It was only in 1861 that serfdom was abolished, and it was only in 1864 that the judicial and administrative departments were separated. It is to-day working thoroughly in prison reform. Until now transportation has above all been a means of removing divers rebellious elements from its midst. It has been applied to political, religious, and even municipal causes. It is certain that the institution should be radically reformed. But before that is done another duty is encountered and that is the reform of prisons. Everywhere in Russia they are in a deplorable condition, and there must be prisons before transportation is discontinued. Following the lead of M. Spassovicz, M. Drill, law counsel to the minister of justice of Russia, M. Fonitzky, advocate-general of the court of appeals of Russia, and M. Woulfert, professor in the Military Academy, Russia, attacked the institution itself. They said that doubtless transportation in theory was an ideal penalty, but its practice demonstrated that it could not be organized, that it was decidedly condemned, and that in fifteen years there have been three movements for its abolition. The effort attempted in the Island of Sakhalien need not be taken into account. Its success could not remove the discouraging results from the experience of centuries. It is time to break with the past and to abandon a system of repression which has produced nothing, and to return to that of imprisonment.

The addresses of the Russian members showed a freedom of speech that is not usually credited to their country. They did not hesitate to attack a system of their country which for centuries has been interwoven in their criminal, religious, and political system. The total abolition of transportation may be looked for in Russia a long time before we shall see France abandon it, but not until prisons are made or rebuilt for their criminal population.

Left alone to defend the system, the French members came to the rescue. M. Petit, one of the ablest counselors of the court of appeals, favored the system. He claimed that every State had a right to use its distant possessions in accordance with its interests. A people that does not wish to submit itself to the system of prolonged cellular detention has a right to set apart a portion of their colonial territory for long confinement for great criminals and incorrigibles. They can in this way protect selves from recidivists and at the same time the colony can receive an element

for its development, if watched with care, so that it does not become troublesome to the honest population; that it was worthy of remark that New Caledonia had never protested against the presence of convicts, and that at the colonial congress of 1890 only asked for new measures favorable to the colonists; that if the penalty is severo it is repressive. It is necessary that work should be obligatory and severe, and that for the interest of the colony the discipline should be extremely rigorous. New offenses should be punished by cellular imprisonment for an indeterminate time The punishment should be reformatory, and to moral instruction the religions should be added. The convict, so far removed from the scene of his crime, should be more accessible to good influences. He is encouraged in his efforts by successive mitigations, which after a while will lead to conditional liberation, first provisional and then definite, so that he may become a new man. Finally, he is to be allowed, at a day fixed, to be restored to his family. How, then, can it be doubted that transportation should not take its place in a rational system of repression?

The defense of the system was continued by Professor Leveille, known as an ardent and indomitable French advocate of transportation. He had studied the system in the prisons of Guiana, and at the end of the Trans-Caspian Railroad. The time limit for the discussion was too brief for so great a subject, but he treated it, however, very happily. Transportation, he said, had two virtues-it permits work in the open air and it does not exhaust the convict, and in the meantime it fits him for free life. It comprises, then, punishment and redemption of the fallen man. Consequently it has a striking superiority over the ordinary prison, which punishes but breaks up the family, declasses the convict, and drives him fatally to recidivism. While the jail produces 95 recidivists out of 100 discharged, and the prison 50 in 100, transportation supplies only 5 in 100. Are not these figures eloquent? Abandoning general considerations, one may engage in refuting the objections which are without cessation brought against transportation and strive to do justice to the legends with which transportation is surrounded. It is true that certain people condemn transportation, but in truth practice it by indirect methods, such as throwing their discharged convicts upon other nations, forcing them by indirect means to leave the country, or generously facilitating their emigration.

It is equally true that the states which have maintained it, as France and Russia, have met with repeated failures. So far as France is concerned, these failures are due not to the institution itself, but either to errors in the law or mistakes in executing the law. The law of 1850 was imperative because of requiring labor of political convicts. The law of 1885 on banishment could only end in miscarriage. It saw creatures exhausted by life in prisons on the Continent and had not dared to clearly impose the obligations of labor, and had left to exist in an equivocal condition the convicts who considered themselves as free laborers. Finally, there was not enough daring to break the tie which held the prisoner to his country, and it maintained in him the sentiment of return. On the contrary, the law of 1851 on transportation was remarkably constructed. It contained in embryo two fruitful ideas, that which strengthens the penalty and that which assists the prisoner of merit, elevates him, and gradually transforms him to a free man. But not until lately has this law been turned to account, which is really the chef d'œuvre of legislation. The penalty has been enervated by excessive indulgence, and there is the attraction to the criminals of New Caledonia. Besides, from their embarkation, before atonement, the convicts were surrendered to speculators at a low price or even gratuitously. We understand from this why the enforcement of labor has been feeble and the support of the men has weighed so heavily on the budget of the State. But these abuses have been shown and no longer exist. Recently administrative regulations have given to the penalty its real charact illegal traffic. On the other hand, the revision of the penal co portation for political offenses, and the penalty of banishment law of 1854 is maintained Then a happy innovation has been a

transportation is authorized, which permits the administration to allow the convict his choice between imprisonment at home or transportation to the colony. Finally, to prevent the return of past abuses, it is proposed to establish a superior council of colonial punishments, which will supervise the execution of distant penalties.

As to Russia, it should definitely relieve itself of all forms of transportation which have become odious to the nation and retain only transportation for crimes at common law called katorga. It implies the obligation of work, without which neither repression nor colonization are possible. It corresponds directly to our penalty of forced labor, and for fifteen years it has been applied with success in the island of Saghalien. It is not proposed to abolish it, but to extend it, and the new project of the penal code of Russia formally favors it. Perhaps it would be humane to imitate on our part the Russians, who, from the first, permit the family of the condemned to follow the convict into exile. At all events, it is remarkable that, proceeding separately, the Russians and French as to transportation end with the same conclusions.

M. Willems, delegate of the French minister of the colonies, said that notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, penal labor could be made productive. Employment of convicts in Algeria under the direction of the military authority has been productive.

M. the Pastor Arboux, chaplain of Seine prisons, insisted with much emotion on the necessity, in a social point of view, to practice the system of riddance in regard to criminals by profession. They were not satisfied to be a scourge only, but applied themselves in addition, with perversity, to educate young criminals by detestable teaching. The person who issues from prison, even a cellular prison, is not for that reason restored. In this point of view transportation is most favorable to the reformation of criminals; above all, if it is organized solidly on moral and religious education.

After this spirited discussion the conclusion was adopted as found herein, and, on comparison with the conclusion at Stockholm on the same subject, it will be found that the congress of Paris was the more favorable of the two to transportation. This conclusion was doubtlessly affected by a sentiment of courtesy to France as the host of the congress.

The question was discussed considerably in the general meeting in the Sorbonne, in which many took part. At this time M. Foinitzky, professor in the University of St. Petersburg, who has published an able work on transportation, took prominent part in the discussion, presenting this resolution:

"The congress, approving the efforts to ameliorate the methods of transportation as a penalty and as a measure of protection to society, finds that the present condition does not present sufficient data for a definite and uniform solution."

This was not adopted.

The attention of his excellency M. Galkine-Wraskoy, the chief of the Russian prison system, having been called to an illustrated article in the Monde Illustré on the island of Saghalien, he stated that the information therein was absolutely authentic, and added that it was entirely true that the results obtained in the island of Saghalien were most encouraging. That the island is inhabited only by those condemned to exile. They undergo imprisonment with hard labor in view of colonization. In Siberia, on the contrary, more diverse elements are combined. Labor is not required of all the deported. "I have the right to say," added he, "that our efforts in Saghalien have succeeded."

M. Fonitzky inquired of M. Wraskoy whether for some years there has not been a plan elaborated in Russia for the suppression of transportation.

His excellency replied affirmatively, but added that it related to transportation to Siberia, where labor is not organized, while in the island of Saghalien, as he had @lready remarked, forced labor was rigorously practiced. This view from the head prison system showing that Siberian exile was to be discontinued,

and Saghalien was to be the great and distant prison of Russia, is an important one to know. The article referred to stated there were 25,000 convicts then in Saghalien and 80 colonists, that all industries were represented, and that already 2,000,000 tons of grain and 8,000,000 tons of potatoes had been produced.

Among the preliminary reports to the congress on transportation was one by M. N. S. Taganitzew, councilor of the court of appeals, professor of the law school of St. Petersburg, honorary member of the University of St. Petersburg and of St. Wladimir at Kiew. He was the only Russian writing on the question submitted who advocated transportation. His report contains a brief history of the rise of transportation and somewhat of its present condition. Without making extracts from his argument, his conclusions are given as follows:

"1. Colonization and transportation, united with imprisonment at hard labor, and in some cases separately applied, examined in the abstract unite the essential conditions of punishment and respond perfectly to the purposes of intimidation, safety, and correction. This is why it should not be excluded from the common system of penal measures in use at this time.

"2. But as the practical application of transportation, as shown by historical experience, presents everywhere serious difficulties, it can only be recommended for states offering convenient conditions, and to a limited extent.

"3. It would be desirable

"(a) That transportation be maintained in countries which possess proper territory for its application; above all, if such countries do not believe it possible to secure penal repression by imprisonment.

"(b) That transportation is not a general measure extending to a great number of criminals, without regard to individual qualities, but that it should be ordered conformably to their physical and moral fitness for colonization."

The jurisprudence society of St. Petersburg is one of high rank, and took a prominent position through its members attending the fourth International Prison Congress in St. Petersburg. They presented quite a number of reports at that congress, and they were of the highest merit, taking the highest and most intelligent positions in prison science. It seems that the paper of M. Taganitzew was presented to the law society before the congress met and that society entered its protest against the position taken by the writer. The commission of the society, having heard the paper read, made the following report:

"1. That the signification of transportation as a penalty in an abstract idea and without regard to experience is unanimously recognized by Russian jurists in the same sense as presented by Professor Taganitzew.

"2. That, on the contrary, as to the practical application of transportation there are differences of opinion, and to the optimism of the report this society apposes a negative opinion, considering that it is doubtful whether there can be a rational organization of transportation in Russia, where for three hundred years it has existed and has not succeeded in strongly establishing itself.

"3. Yet in the meantime we must accept transportation as necessary (always with the restrictions named by M. Taganitzew) in presence of the faults of prison organization; for of the two evils-a bad prison and bad transportation-the former is evidently the greatest, and at the same time it need not be forgotten that even the existence of transportation need not check the improvement of the prison system." M. Taganitzew says of the present state of transportation:

rin to cerl their

sons tor

"The want of enough prisons in Siberia for convicts was the cause in 1879, of the publication of provisional regulations restraining transportation tain classes of criminals. The convicts who were not transpo punishment in local prisons provided for that purpose. But sojou without labor and without any classification among criminals too of punishment, making the prison a nursery of vice. And on the crowded local prisons, without sanitary con

raised the dea