District of Columbia. U. S. Stat. 1885, c. 58, Act for the Protection of Children; U. S. Stat. 1892, c. 250, Act to Provide for the Care of Dependent Children in the District of Columbia and to Create a Board of Guardians; and U. S. Stat. 1901, c. 847, provide for probation officers, adult delinquency, contribution by the parent, and suspended sentence and bond. U. S. Stat. 1906, c. 960, creates a Juvenile Court in and for the District of Columbia; provides for probation officers, prosecution on information by the corporation. counsel or his assistant; and is especially good on procedure (secs. 17–23).

Idaho. A feature common in the working of the system in several states, but especially provided for by statute appears in Idaho, 1907, Mar. 12, p. 231, sec. 3, providing that the probate judge and the school superintendent shall work in conjunction.

Illinois. The Illinois statutes contain a full statement of the powers of the judge, procedure, disposal of the child, and the duties of the probation officers. (See especially 1905, p. 152, p. 189, and 1907, p. 69, p. 70.) Indiana. A complete adult delinquency law, 1905, c. 145, and 1907, c. 169.

Iowa. The Law of 1907, c. 7, sec. 3, provides for the levying of a special tax for the support of a detention home and probation officers.

Kentucky and Louisiana passed comprehensive and well worded Juvenile Court Laws in 1906.

Kansas. The Law of 1901, c. 106, combines the action of the Humane Society with the work of probation officers.

Maine has a Frobation Law.

Maryland has Juvenile Court Laws for the city of Baltimore.

Massachusetts. Massachusetts' legislation forms an epitome of the development of juvenile courts. Michigan. The law of 1907, no. 325, is especially well worth study. It was carefully drawn, avoiding the features which caused the 1905 law to be declared unconstitutional.1

Minnesota and Missouri have good laws on both Juvenile Courts and Probation.

Montana. 1907, c. 92, a complete law, well stated, contemplates placing children in state homes.

Nebraska. The 1907 legislation (c. 45 & 46) is especially good.

New Hamshire.

1907, c. 125, sec. 3: "It shall be unlawful for any newspaper to publish any of the proceedings of any juvenile court."

New Jersey has both Probation and Juvenile Court Laws.

New York. Has good laws on both Probation and Juvenile Courts.

See legislation recommended by the New York Probation Commission Report, 1905 (not passed).

Ohio. 1908, Apr. 24, contains an especially wide and complete definition of delinquent, and of dependent and neglected children. A carefully drawn law. Oklahoma has special legislation concerning juvenile offenders.

1 This statute is already being found fault with. however, as providing no method for caring for any child between the age of seven and twelve having pronounced criminal tendencies." Judge Ronhert, quoted in Charities. November 16. 1907, p. 1071.

Oregon. 1907, c. 34. Complete, concise, well arranged.

Pennsylvania has both Juvenile Court and Probation Laws.

Rhode Island has a Juvenile Probation System. Tennessee has Juvenile Courts and Juvenile Proba

tion.

Texas. 1907, c. 44-45, good on hearing, procedure, and disposal of the child.

Utah. 1907, c. 139, a comprehensive title; good on compensation, power and extent of jurisdiction of the court and selection of the judge; provides for a Juvenile Court Commission consisting of the Governor, Attorney General and State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Contains (sec. 5) a statement of alternative decrees and judgments, and (sec. 11) the duties of the probation officers. Adds to the Ohio definitions. May be read profitably in connection with the decision of the Utah Supreme Court in 1907, Mill v. Brown, 31 Utah 473 (see infra. p. 32).

Vermont has county Probation Officers.

Washington. Washington legislation provides also for the jurisdiction of the judge of the Juvenile Court over the employment of child labor (1907, c. 128).

Wisconsin. Wisconsin Juvenile Court Laws provide a special method for the appointment and employment of probation officers. (Sess. Laws, 1907.

Sec. 573-2, Sub-sec. 4.)1

1 Compare methods suggested by the New York Probation Commission Report, 1905, Appendix A, p. 101-106.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Constitutionality of Statutes

The constitutionality of statutes establishing juvenile courts as such, has been brought into question in the following cases:

Mansfield's Case. In Mansfield's Case, 22 Pa. Superior Court 224, (1903) the Pennsylvania Law of 1901, c. 185, (P. L. 279) establishing juvenile courts and the probation system, was declared unconstitutional. It was held that the legislature could not legislate the judge of an old court onto the bench of a new court which it was creating; that the title of the act was insufficient to allow the wide interpretation given it, that the act was special legislation inasmuch as it classified children and discriminated between classes; that requiring a child to make a formal affidavit in order to secure trial by jury violates the constitutional guarantee of that right. The legislature of Pennsylvania subsequently reenacted the statute as five separate Acts, changing some parts and leaving to the Juvenile Court and Probation Act, 1903, c. 205, (P. L. 274), such provisions only as have reference to the care, treatment, and control of dependent, neglected, incorrigible, and delinquent chil

dren under the age of sixteen years, and providing for the means by which special power may be exercised.1

Ex parte Loving. In ex parte Loving, 178 Missouri 194, (Dec. 9, 1903) the Missouri Law, Mar. 23, 1903, p. 213, was held constitutional. It was held that the terms "neglected" and "delinquent" children do not refer to different subjects, but only to different classes, the title being "children"; that the limitation of the application of the law to counties having 150,000 or more population does not make it a special or local law; that it is within the competence of the legislature to make certain provisions for densely populated districts which it cannot for rural districts, and to make special provisions for children whose surroundings are disadvantageous, which it does not make for those under other conditions; that failure to provide for separation of neglected and delinquent children does not render the statute unconstitutional; that the provisions of such a statute render void such. provisions of a city charter as conflict with them.

Commonwealth v. Fisher.2 In Commonwealth v. Fisher, 213 Pa. State 48, 5 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 92, (Oct. 9, 1905), an appeal from the decisions of the Superior Court of Pa., the Pennsylvania Statute, 1903, c. 205, (P. L. 274), was declared valid. It was held that the title of the act is sufficient (not containing more than one subject); that the act does not create a new court; that the act does not deprive juveniles

1 See Commonwealth v. Fisher, infra.

2 See Mansfield's Case, supra.