read in consonance with this other principle upon which the constitution was reared. Therefore, the guaranty is that we shall be secure in freedom to use such speech as does not injure the rest of the community. Interpreted by the Espionage Act, certain language and certain expressed thoughts are, at this time injurious to the nation and its people, which possibly, in a day of peace would be harmless. Therefore, they are inhibited. Evidently the inhibition is constitutional, because it is the expression, in a republican form, of the present interpretation by public opinion of meaning of the constitutional guaranty of free speech.

Thus we find ample justification for the restrictions of the act within the "four-corners" of the constitution. But we have not yet furnished a criterion to guide our conduct in accordance with these restrictions. We are again at the portals of the Temple of Justice seeking knowledge of the ultimate bounds of the free speech defined by exclusion from the act. What is promotive of the cause of the enemy? What is disloyal?

Possessed of the compass of the evident intention of the act, we are not likely to find difficulty in ascertaining the safe rule of interpretation.

For instance: The right of free speech clearly has reference, with regard to policies, only to those in the making, not to past and irrevocable acts. Thus the government has declared war. Controversy therefore as to the right or the wrong of the declaration is ex post facto. It cannot alter the case. It can raise pernicious dissension. Yet, even so, discussion of the justice of the war is not foreclosed. Simply the citizen must not preach sedition or crime. To oppose the draft law is now a crime. To preach such opposition is, therefore, prohibited. It is because the pacifist, having had his day of debate while the measures now in force were in the making, urges now a disregard of these measures which carry penal fangs that he finds himself in the grip of the Espionage Law. It is not the closure of debate that is effected, but the closing of a nursery for crime. Surely, the right of free speech was never intended by any government to cover language subversive of the sanction of that government itself. And thus we dispose of the militant pacifist. Likewise is the syndicalist subject beyond question to the penalties of the act. He, who, in his fervor of proselytism, advocates the brand of sabotage or the knife of nihilism, must naturally find his soap-box overturned.

What, then, of the rabid party man? Is political discussion taboo, and he who attacks the policies of the majority a felon? Not while

here, as in ancient Rome, the forum rules the palace. How, then, do we know where to find the point at which the gavel is replaced by the policemen's club as the symbol of authority? Most easily. Speech which is not advocacy of crime is permitted. However much it reflects upon existing functionaries and policies, however much it brings into question the divine right of the majority, it may be freely exercised. Only when it becomes the partisan of crime does the law intervene, on behalf of its own dignity, to denounce it.

With such a criterion appealing to reason and to patriotism and scrupulously regardful of personal rights, all men should be content.

WHAT VALUE HAS THE INSPECTION OF

INSTITUTIONS?

E. R. CASS1

The initial authority for the state-wide inspection of penal institutions in New York State was provided in 1846, in the act incorporating the Prison Association of New York. The Executive Committee of the Association was empowered and required to appoint committees from time to time to inspect the prisons of the state. It was also made mandatory that the association report annually to the legislature the results of the inspections, together with other information that would be helpful to that body in improving the government and discipline of the institutions. Although no provision was made for the enforcement of recommendations subsequent to inspections, the association has always functioned, as it should, in the capacity of public informant.

Nearly fifty years later the state established its own official inspecting body, namely, the State Commission of Prisons. Its powers and duties consist of the inspection of penal institutions, the collection of records from the same, the regulation of the construction of new institutions and to some degree the enforcement, with the aid of the law, of its recommendations. So that now in the State of New York there is an official and a semi-official form of supervision of the penal institutions.

For the past five years, the Prison Association has employed two inspectors, one devoting most of his time to institutions of the Department of Correction of New York City, and the other to institutions outside of the city. The Prison Commission consists of seven commissioners, appointed by the governor, each for a term of five years. The commission appoints a secretary, who is assisted by a chief clerk and two inspectors. The commissioners are not required to give their time daily to the work, so that the greater part of it is performed by the secretary and his very small staff. The inspection field includes over sixty jails, six county penitentiaries, several reformatories, five state prisons, and hundreds of police lockups.

The question is frequently raised as to the value of inspection. Its usefulness depends largely upon the manner and spirit in which it is performed, its purpose, and the ability and training of the inspectors.

1Of the New York Prison Association.

It is important, so far as an institutional inspection goes, that the inspectors have courage, tact, a general training in the field in which they are to engage, and experience, particularly in an institution, in the handling of large groups of persons. The former, for impartial, efficient work, and also for a knowledge of the progressive and theoretical ideas, and the latter for a reasonable and genuine conception of the singular problems continually arising in the management of an institution,

Criticism, and sometimes suggestions are annoying and distasteful to most people, and the heads of institutions are not lacking in this human characteristic. Some administrators regard criticism, no matter how fair, unprejudiced and constructive, as the natural and only sequel of a visit, also as the inspector's invaluable asset in substantiating the need for the continuation of his job. Others welcome it in a "willing-to-try-spirit," regarding an inspector as the conveyor of ideas and the disseminator of information, both gained principally by wide visitation. Therefore, in order to deal fairly and avoid unnecessary irritation, the inspector should be fully cognizant of the many phases relating to the management of the institution under inspection. In determining to what extent the administrator of an institution is to be held responsible for defects, it is well definitely to decide whether he is doing the best he can with the facilities at his disposal. This requires, in many instances, long stays in institutions for careful observation and the weighing of testimony given by administrators, assistants and inmates.

The state prisons in New York State have undergone many improvements, structurally and administratively. Some of these changes. have had their origin in the department itself and others have been brought about through recommendations made subsequent to inspections of the Prison Commission or the association. Perhaps the most conspicuous result has been the formulating of plans for the construction of a new Sing Sing. Year after year, inspections and investigations of that institution were made, and it was sometimes felt that this was all in vain. However, the repeated criticisms gradually focused the public eye on the wretched living conditions, principally the cells, and created a state-wide sentiment demanding changes. This resulted in the passing of legislation providing for a new institution with some new features, all of which, when completed, will, perhaps, give New York State the finest institution of its kind in the country.

Without the slightest doubt, inspections in the last few years have brought about many changes in our county penitentiaries. Legisla

tion was obtained which required the separation of adults and minors. In several of the penitentiaries this much desired separation was not carried out because the original statute applied only to jails.

The treatment of prisoners under punishment has been improved. Blankets have been provided where, heretofore, prisoners were required to spend long hours in cold and damp quarters, without covering other than their own garments. Instead of being required to sleep on stone floors, a sleeping plank or bed has been placed in punishment cells. In one institution the punishment quarters have been entirely renovated. Provisions were made for better air and plenty of light. The system of dealing with prisoners under punishment was so changed that women were not kept in the punishment sections while male prisoners were there, and also that matrons supervised female prisoners under punishment.

There was found in one institution a system of punishment which recalled the days when society's attitude toward the offender was solely one of vengeance. Prisoners who attempted to escape from the institution or the quarry, when apprehended, were made to wear an iron chain about five feet long and weighing 20 pounds. This was riveted to the leg of the offender, and naturally became a part of each man until it was removed. He was required to move about the institution with it, bathe with it, go to his meals with it, sleep with it, etc. Needless to say, this form of punishment was not only degrading but was responsible for much unnecessary physical discomfort and hardship. Pictures of these chained men were shown to other institutional heads, who were surprised to learn that such a thing existed. If it were necessary to use chains, a simpler method of fastening them to the men could have easily been provided. After many protests and a live public campaign this condition was removed, and recent information is to the effect that since its discontinuance there have been fewer escapes.

Plain gray uniforms have been substituted for the striped one. Conversation has been permitted in mess halls.

One penitentiary was prominently known because of certain methods of dealing with its inmates. In the absence of sufficient employment in this institution the inmates were assembled daily in the old shop buildings and required to remain silent. After much persuasion the superintendent consented to permit free conversation for a certain period in the morning and again in the afternoon. Likewise, these prisoners were permitted to exercise once in the morning and again in the afternoon, instead of sitting the full period of morning and afternoon on benches. The use of the ball and chain in this