Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/343

 REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF PENAL INSTITUTIONS.

THE National Prison Association at its meeting in Philadel- phia, October, 1902, passed this resolution, on motion of Dr. Charlton T. Lewis :

WHEREAS, An entire change in the principles and methods of supervision and control of penal institutions has recently been made by law in several states of the Union, and similar changes are now advocated in other states, by which economy and efficiency are supposed by some to be promoted, while others apprehend as a result the increase of political influence in these institutions, and injury to their best features ; therefore

Resolved, That a committee consisting of Professor Charles R. Hender- son, Dr. Frederick H. Wines, and Dr. (Professor) Francis Wayland [Mr. Eugene Smith being subsequently added to the committee] be requested to inquire into the methods of supervision and control of penal institutions pro- vided for by the laws of the different states and of other civilized countries, and to report the facts with their views and conclusions to the next National Prison Congress. 1

This report considers the topic of central control and super- vision of penal institutions under several general heads: (i) definition : the aims and scope of central control and supervision of penal institutions; (2) the actual facts and tendencies in rela- tion to central control and supervision of penal institutions in Europe and America; (3) a comparison of the judgments and opinions of experts and competent students, and their reasons for their positions on the subject the weighing of the argu- ments; (4) such recommendations as the individual members of the committee think wise to present for discussion in the

1 The members of the committee, being widely separated, could not hold meet- ings, but were compelled to arrange the plan of investigation by correspondence. Dr. Wayland, on account of the state of his health, was unable to give assistance. His eminent ability, his profound legal learning, and his philanthropic spirit would have added much to the value of our report, and we are sorry that he was obliged to decline to act. The questions proposed for investigation were formulated by the co-operation of all active members of the committee. As Dr. Wines and Mr. Eugene Smith could not be present at the Congress, and hence did not see the report, they are not responsible for its final form as presented here.

329