court legislation in Illinois, in an article widely copied in the public press, says:

Throughout the law the state is made supreme master over the child. The parent is only incidentally considered; he is not made a party to the proceedings, nor is he charged with neglect or inability to care for his child. The state is made to occupy the position of primary parent with rights superior to that of the natural parent. This is a false and vicious position to take. There is no law or authority to substantiate this doctrine. The rights of the parent are superior to those of the state, and, until the parent forfeits these rights the state cannot interfere with his control or custody of the child. Parental rights should not only be protected, but, as far as practicable, preserved.

Archbishop Glennon, of St. Louis, has been quoted as follows:

We have the right to preserve our homes from state control. We have the right to remain free and not to become tenants of a soulless state. We utterly abhor the doctrine that the little children who bless our homes shall be wards of the state, common property. The idea of common parentage is not only the end of order, but the end of civilization itself.

It would not be difficult to eliminate the features of these statutes which conflict with constitutional provisions and general legal theory and still retain all the valuable features so that they might fit into our legal system and not be, as they are now, extra-legal expedients. The system of probation and the whole administrative system provided for enabling a court to exercise supervision over the delinquent juvenile are generally appreciated as valuable and will be still further improved. The vague and unlimited nature of the powers granted to the court would seem to call for some further definition and specification. It is to be presumed, of course, that the court will act in accordance with legal principles. It has, however, been proposed to constitute laymen and women juvenile court judges. This has been opposed on the ground that legal training is essential for a judge in the juvenile court as well as in any other. In regard to such a proposal the supreme court of Utah said in Mill vs. Brown:

The judge of any court, and especially a judge of a juvenile court, should be willing at all times, not only to respect, but to maintain and preserve the legal and natural rights of men and children alike.. The juvenile court law is of such vast importance to the state and society that it seems to us it should be administered by those who are learned in the law and versed

in the rules of procedure, to the end that the beneficent purposes of the law may be made effective and individual rights respected.

But everything should not rest with the personality of the judge. While with the right man in the right place the very indefiniteness of his powers may be productive of immediate good, in the long run it will be just as unsafe as experience proved it to be in the criminal law. The corporal punishments and other abuses that have developed in some of our juvenile courts are sufficient indications of possibilities. The desired result might, of course, be reached through the decisions of the courts themselves. For reasons partly indicated above, however, few cases come before the appellate courts and if juvenile court judges formulate their decisions in writing these do not find their way into the reports. It is not impossible that judicial decisions may become more prominent in connection with this class of cases, but some modification of the acts themselves would seem desirable.

There is too a confusion of functions in these statutes. The view is gaining general recognition that the juvenile court should not have jurisdiction in the cases of dependent children. Where the case is one only of relief because of poverty or misfortune there is no question for a court, and such cases can be far better dealt with by the administrative agency of the poor directors or similar officials and agencies. But beside the question of dependency there are the distinct fields of crime and status embraced in most juvenile court acts. The child who comes into court accused of crime inevitably stands on a different footing from one who is there merely from parental neglect or from incorrigibility-and should. All criminal questions should be dealt with by a criminal court. Every child accused of crime should be tried and be subject to neither punishment nor restraint of liberty unless convicted. No child should be restrained simply because he has been accused of crime, whether he is guilty or not. Of course if there is no denial of the charge there is no necessity for a trial; but there can be no objection to having the criminal charge tried in the criminal court. There need be no punishment. If convicted he can then be turned over to the juvenile court to determine in a proper proceeding, with the rights of all parties safeguarded, whether a change in his custody or status would be for his best interest. We should then have the juvenile court dealing only with questions of status, with questions of the

custody and the control of the child. It may be that criminal trials of juveniles should be held at special sessions, but the separation of the consideration of the fixing of the status of the child from the consideration of his guilt or innocence of a criminal offense would be advantageous. There seems to be a tendency to bring all questions of family status into one group before one court, the so-called courts of "domestic relations." Theoretically there is much to recommend this scheme but its value remains to be demonstrated in practice.

THE TREND OF THE JUVENILE COURT

BY THOMAS D. ELIOT,

Portland, Oregon.

Workers and thinkers in the field of the juvenile court have, consciously or unconsciously, divided in theory and in practice during recent years. By contrasting sharply their differing views, and by noting the various courts with these contrasts in mind, the writer purposes to bring out certain conclusions as to the present trend of the juvenile court as an institution. An analysis of the functions performed at present by juvenile courts will show to what extent the differences in their policies are reconcilable.

One group of workers tends to expand the court's work to include many different services as the need arises or the budget allows.

Another group wishes to limit the court's functions, or to transfer them entirely to other agencies. There are two conspicuous lines of thought in this second group, each equally plausible, which at first sight, however, seemed to the writer mutually exclusive. On the one hand, there is the statement that the functions of the juvenile court should be taken over by the school system. On the other hand is the argument that they could better be performed by fusion with a domestic relations court, handling the whole family unit.

I

Before passing judgment on these groups, let us review the courts themselves for facts which seem to point in one or another direction.

In the courts of the following cities have been developed one or more specialized lines of social work in connection with probation: Washington, D. C.; Richmond and Brooklyn, N. Y.; Newark and Elizabeth, N. J.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, and Cincinnati, Ohio; Louisville, Ky.; Indianapolis, Ind.; Kansas City, Mo.; Denver, Colo.; Salt Lake City, Utah; Los Angeles and San Francisco, Cal.; Portland, Ore.; Seattle, Wash.; Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Toronto, Can.; Chicago, Ill.; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn.; Des Moines, Iowa.

The list of activities differentiated from or grafted on to the probation department includes placing-out and employment agencies, clinics, educational classes, recreational groups and camps, relief measures and pensions. I have included above those courts which are so closely allied with some organization performing these functions as to make the two a single institution for all practical purposes; such as the Juvenile Probation Association of Brooklyn or the "Auxiliary" of the San Francisco court. Many probation offices not included here constantly perform some of these services for their charges, but have not developed special facilities for handling any one kind of need.

Juvenile courts in many places, chiefly in the middle west, have features partaking in some way of the nature of domestic relations courts. The New Jersey, Ohio, Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Michigan and Utah courts are in this group. In other places opinions are openly advocated which point in a similar direction. Among these are Pittsburgh, Louisville, St. Louis,1 Grand Rapids,' and Chicago.3 Contributory delinquency and dependency laws, the jurisdiction of which is now almost everywhere placed in the juvenile court, also point toward the intimate connection between juvenile and domestic relations courts.

Of the attempt to transfer or force back different phases of probation work upon other agencies there are examples, not always deliberate or clear-cut, in Boston, Springfield (Mass.), Newark, Baltimore, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Denver, Oakland (Cal.), Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Grand Rapids. The report of the Hotchkiss committee on the juvenile court of Chicago (1911-1912) contains perhaps the best statement of the thesis that the juvenile court is an educational institution. The proposals of the so-called Levy bill in New York, and of Mr. Willis Brown, formerly of Salt Lake City and Gary, Ind., for transplanting the juvenile court bodily to the school system, are not by any means carefully or consistently worked out, but they are significant indications of a tendency in this direction.

1912.

1 Report, 1912-1913.

2 Report, 1912.

The Survey, May 11, 1912; The Criminal Law and Criminal, September,

See also paper by Prof. W. E. Hotchkiss, in Proceedings of National Conference of Charities and Corrections, Cleveland, 1912.