Skip to main content

Full text of "Juvenile courts"

See other formats

1908 ' 




Prepared with the co-operation of the Political Science 

Department of the University of Wisconsin 










Evolution of Juvenile Court Principles in Legisla- 
tion 6 

Development in the United States 8 


Foreign 12 

United States 19 

Analysis of Statutes 19 

Laws by States 24 


Constitutionality of Statutes 30 

Decisions which Affect Various Principles Em- 
bodied in Juvenile Court Legislation or Admin- 
istration 34 




BAERNREITHER, J. M. Jugendfursorge und Strafrecht in den 
Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Leipzig, 1905. 

BATES, HELEN PAGE. Digest of statutes relating to juvenile 
courts and probation systems. Charities, 1905, vol. 13, p. 

A digest with three tables of state laws, to 1905, on probation, ju- 
venile courts, and provisions for dependent, neglected and wayward 

Report of the Probation Commission of State of 

New York. Albany, 1906. 

A comprehensive study of the probation laws and systems as ex 
isting and practiced in various states and cities, with a recom 
mended bill, and with a collection of the legislation of the variou 
states, up to 1905. Also contains a very complete bibliography o 
juvenile court literature, p. 291-300. 

BERENGER, SEN., and JULHIET, Ed. Les tribunaux speciaux 
pour enfants aux Etats Unis, en France, Angleterre, et 
Allemagne. Administration de la Revue 1' Enfant, Paris, 

CHARITIES. A weeky review of local and general philan- 
thropy, 1898-19. New York. 

FOLKS, H. The care of destitute, neglected and dependent 
children. New York, 1902. 

HAHN, E. Die Strafrechtsreform und die jugendlichen Ver- 
brecher. Jahrbuch der Gehestiftung, 9-10, Dresden, 1904. 

HURD, H. B. Juvenile court law, Charities, vol. 13, 1905, p. 

HURLEY, T. D. History of the Illinois Juvenile Court. Juve- 
nile Court Record, May, 1907. 

S. J. Barrows, Washington, 1904. 

THE JUVENILE COURT RECORD. Published monthly, 79 Dear- 
born St., Chicago 1900,-19 . 


KUN, BELA, and LADAY, ETIENNE. La Lutte contra la Crim- 
inalite des Mineurs en Hongrie. Budapest, 1905. 

Legislation in Regard to Children. Report of Conference at 
London, 1906. Published by P. S. King & Son, West- 
minster, 1906. 

LINDSEY, JUDGE B. B. The Juvenile Court Laws of the State 
of Colorado. Denver, 1905. 

An explanation of the purpose of the laws as in force and as pro- 

MORRISON, W. D. Juvenile Offenders. New York, 1897. 
The problem of the children and how the state of Colorado 

cares for them. Report of the juvenile court of Denver. 

Denver, 1904. 

: See especially ch. II, The Law and the Court; and ch. Ill, Ad- 
ministrative Work. 

RUSSELL, C. E. B., and RIGBY, L. M. (The) Making of the 
Criminal. London, 1906. 

Statutes of every State in the United States concerning de- 
pendent, neglected, and delinquent children. Committee 
of New Century Club, Philadelphia, 1900. 

STEPHENS, G. A. The Juvenile Court System of Kansas. 
Topeka, 1906.^ 

Courts in the United States. 58th Cong. 2nd Sess. 
House of Representatives, doc. no. 701. Washington, 1904. 

WINES, DR. E. C. The state of Prisons and Child-saving In- 
stitutions. Cambridge, 1886. 


A number of fundamental principles underlie juve- 
nile court legislation and the decisions of the courts 
upon which juvenile court and probation systems now 
rest : ( 1 ) Children should not be considered as crimi- 
nals but as victims of circumstance. Distinction must 
be made between neglected, dependent, and wayward 
children and delinquents and incorrigibles. (2) Chil- 
dren should not bfe thrown into association before, dur- 
ing, or after trial, with criminals or adults under ac- 
cusation. (3) All the resources of the community 
should be used by the court to promote the welfare of 
the child and to protect him. (4) Children should be 
tried by special courts in special rooms with the least 
possible publicity or display of legal machinery, and 
the whole process dissociated from criminal procedure. 
The judges should, as far as possible, be "child ex- 
perts." (5) Probation officers, competent, in adequate 
number, and paid, should be at the disposal of the 
court. (6) Parents, guardians, etc., are in many cases 
to be held responsible for the offense of the child. 

1 See Lindsey : Juvenile Court Laws of Colorado. 
Berenger: op. cit., p. 1-60. 
Hahn: op.ctt. 

Barrows; In International Prison Commission Report. 1904. p. 
XI ff. 


Evolution of Juvenile Court Principles in Legis- 

The juvenile court, under that name, is of recent 
growth, but the principles which underlie it are to be 
found far back in English Law in the right and duty 
of the state as parens patriae . x Turning to modern 
legislation we find in the law of 1840 (3 and 4 Vic. 
c. 90), "For the Care and Education of Infants who 
may be convicted of Felony," provision that the High 
Court of Chancery may, upon application, place any 
persons under 21 years of age who may be convicted 
of felony in care of persons or associations that 
agree to teach and train them during minority. Laws, 
1866 (29 and 30 Vic. c. 118) and 1894 (57 and 58 Vic. 
c. 33 provide that morally imperiled children may 
be sent by the court to certified industrial schools, or 
lodged at home or with a respectable person and there 
be trained, clothed, and fed. The Law of 1847 (10 
and 11 Vic. c. 82) provides for summary conviction 
of children not over fourteen, and allows the justices 
to excuse convicted offenders from punishment at their 

New South Wales in 1857 (20 Vic. no. 19) and 1864 

1 Compare Blackstone III, 426-428. 


(27 Vic. no. 16) passed laws for state protection of 
destitute children up to the age of nineteen, with con- 
tribution by the parents. The English "Industrial 
Schools Act," of 1866, (29 and 30 Vic. c. 118), con- 
tains several of the principles, especially the definition 
of neglected and dependent children (sec. 14), and 
provisions for the relation between parent and court, 
which are prominent in almost every modern Juvenile 
Court Act. The English "Summary Jurisdiction Act" 
of 1870 (42 and 43 Vic. c. 49), and its amending Act, 
1899 (02 and 63 Vic. c. 22), provide for summary 
jurisdiction when the right of trial by jury is waived 
by the parent or the juvenile offender (age 12 to 16). 1 

The principle of probation is recognized in the "Pro- 
bation Act" of Queensland, 1886 (50 Vic. no. 14). 
The English "Probation of First Offender's Act" of 
1887 (50 and 51 Vic. c. 25) gives the court the power 
to release upon probation instead of sentencing to 

In 1890 New Zealand adopted a "Children's Protec- 
tion Act" (1890 no. 21), whereby punishment is pre- 
scribed for ill treatment, neglect, abandonment, or ex- 
posure of children ; and restrictions are placed on em- 
ployment of children, the court in both cases being 
given discretionary powers and being allowed to place 
the child in a suitable home or institution, and to com- 
pel the parents to contribute to the support ; while pro- 
vision is also made for appeal from decisions of the 
court. In 1896 Queensland passed a "Children's Pro- 

1 Compare also New Zealand Act, 1882, no. 15. 


tection Act" (60 Vic. 26) similar to the New Zealand 
Act. In 1899 an English Act (62 and 63 Vic. c. 22) 
gave summary jurisdiction over "all offenses of young 
persons other than homicide." 

In 1901 the English "Youthful Offender's Act" (64 
Vic. I Ed. VII, c. 20) removed disqualifications at- 
taching to conviction of felony of a child or young 
person; emphasized parent liability; and gave the 
court the power to remand or commit, pending trial, 
to some place other than a prison. In 1902 New 
South Wales passed an act (1902, no. 47) for "Pro- 
tection of Children." In 1906 Victoria passed a 
"Children's Court Act" (1906, no. 2058) which is a 
model of completeness. New legislation is at present 
pending in England. (Cf. infra, p. 14). 

Development in the United States 

The most rapid, tangible, and systematic develop- 
ment of the principles has been in the United States. 
In 1863 Massachusetts passed a law separating chil- 
dren in court from adults charged with offense. In 
1877 New York passed a similar and more concise 
law, which provides that no child under sixteen "shall 
be placed in any prison or place of confinement . . . 
or in any vehicle in company with adults charged or 
convicted with crime, except in the presence of proper 
officers." Michigan, in 1873, established a State Agency 
for the Care of Juvenile Offenders, which has per- 
formed functions similar to those of probation officers. 
Massachusetts passed Probation Laws in 1878 and 
1880. In 1891 Massachusetts summarized a number 


of statutory provisions concerning the treatment of 
children, which had been enacted in her previous legis- 
lation, (May 28, 1891, c. 356). New York, in 1892, 
added a new section to the Penal Code allowing sepa- 
rate trial, special docket, and separate record for cases 
of children under sixteen. It has been affirmed that 
the basis of the Juvenile Court Law is the Board of 
Guardians Law, passed by the Indiana Legislature, 
March 9, 1891, (c. 151) and amend. March 3, 1893, 
(c. 122.) 

The Colorado School Law, April 12, 1899, c. 136, 
provided special treatment for "juvenile disorderly 
persons," and contained many of the principles which 
have been embodied in subsequent juvenile court laws. 
The law which really created the juvenile court was 
that passed by the Illinois Legislature, 1 April 21, 1899, 
p. 131. Its provisions have constituted the frame work 
of many of the laws passed in other states. 

Since 1899, the growth and development of the 
juvenile court system has been rapid and extensive. 
Many states had previously passed probation laws, 
and it is noticeable that the probation system has 
usually preceded the juvenile court. 2 In 1899, Michi- 
gan and Rhode Island passed "Juvenile Probation" 
laws. In 1901, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, 
and Wisconsin passed juvenile court or juvenile pro- 
bation laws, or both. In 1902, Ohio and New York 
passed laws concerning children's courts. In 1903, 

1 Cf . : History of the Illinois Juvenile Court Law, T. D. Hurley, Juve- 
nile Court Record, May, 1907. u. 6 ff . 
*Cf:l Statutes, compiled [by Nt \v Century Club, Philadelphia, 18CO. 


no less than nine states legislated on these subjects. 
In that year Colorado passed the original "Adult De- 
linquency" Law. In 1904, five states; and in 1905, 
no less than twenty, legislated on these three subjects, 
in most cases on all three. In 1906, four states 
enacted new, or revised old, statutes affecting juvenile 
courts. In 1907, no less than eighteen states, enacted 
new statutes or added to or revised old statutes. By 
the end of 1907, thirty-two states and the District of 
Columbia had probation laws, and twenty-seven and 
the District of Columbia had juvenile court laws. 
Few states have been satisfied with their original laws. 
Some changes have been necessary on account of de- 
cisions of the courts ; some have been made for the 
purpose of simplicity ; but most of them represent ex- 
tensions which have been found practicable as the 
work of the court has expanded and its value has been 
appreciated. The Alabama, Colorado, District of 
Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Massachusetts, 
Oregon, and Utah laws furnish an especially interest- 
ing field for study. The Michigan law of 1907 is very 
carefully drawn. The Colorado law of 1907 is repre- 
sentative of the most advanced juvenile court legisla- 
tion. The latest, and a very complete, law is that 
passed in Ohio in April, 1908. 

After the legislative development, and largely in- 
fluencing it, the detailed study of the juvenile court 
system is to be sought in the development of city 
courts under the provisions of the state statutes. Es- 
pecially interesting are those of Boston, Buffalo, Chi- 


cago, Denver, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, 
New York, Rochester, and San Francisco. 

The scientific development of the system in the 
United States has caused wide study, both interstate 
and by commissions from abroad, especially from Eng- 
land, France, Germany, and Sweden. The Howard 
Association of London, M. Ed. Julhiet from France, 
Dr. J. M. Baernreither from Germany, and Judge 
Harald Salomon from Sweden have within the last 
four years made special studies of the American Sys- 
tem with a view to bettering Juvenile Legislation. 
Their countries and others are passing laws which em- 
body in concrete form many of the features which 
characterize the American Juvenile Court. 



Foreign Countries 

England. 1 The English tribunals are well prepared 
to deal with children under twelve, and with youthful 
offenders under sixteen, because of the wide discre- 
tionary powers which the English criminal law, as re- 
formed during the nineteenth century, confers upon 
judges and magistrates. 2 Control of the court over 
persons as juveniles ceases at the age of sixteen. 3 The 
English statutes provide for summary judgment where 
jury is not especially demanded by parent or guardian 
or by the "child or the youthful offender." 4 Justices 
may excuse convicted offender from punishment where 
expedient. 5 Dependent or neglected children, under 
fourteen, found begging, .wandering, homeless, without 
proper guardian or visible means of support, associat- 
ing with criminals, etc., may be brought by any one 
before two justices or a magistrate and may be sent 
to a certified industrial school or to a home with re- 
sponsible parents, due regard being given to the re- 

1 For account of English Juvenile Court, see Seeking 1 and Saving 1 , 
Oct., 1906. Cf. Berenger, op. cit. and Russell and Rigby, op. ctt. 
' W. D. Morrison, op. ctt.. p. 187. 

* Statutes 1866 (29 and 30 Vic. 118) and 1901 (64 Vic. and I Ed. VII, c. 20). 
4 1879 (42 and 43 Vic. c. 49. sec. 10-11). 

1847 (10 and 11 Vic. c. 82). 


ligious persuasion of the child, and to the requests and 
rights of the parents. 1 Parents may be forced to con- 
tribute to the child's maintenance. 2 

Parents or guardian may be summoned as contribut- 
ing to the offense of the child, or for neglect, and may 
be tried with the child and may be fined and ordered 
to pay security for its good behavior and may be 
made to pay toward its support if committed to a 
state institution or home. The court may release the 
offender on probation or for good conduct. 3 A sepa- 
rate register for convicted youthful offenders shall be 
kept. 4 Appeal may be made to the High Court of 
Justice. 5 The child committed may be discharged by 
the Secretary of State. 6 Most of these principles ap- 
ply to Ireland and Scotland as well. 

England is establishing short Detention Schools on 
the model of Truant Schools. The English system 
especially emphasises the co-operation of the courts 
with the educational authorities and insists upon par- 
ental responsibility. 

The juvenile court idea has progressed rapidly in 
the English cities. 7 One of the most successful has 
been that instituted at Birmingham, April 13, 1905. 
The working of this court resulted in the issuing 1 of a 
government circular which pointed out the necessity 

1 1866 (29 and 30 Vic. c. 118). 

1901 (64 Vic. and I Ed. VII, c. 20, sec. 4). 

1 1887 (50 and 51 Vic. c. 25). 

* 1901 (64 Vic. and I Ed. VII, c. 20, sec. 13). 

1879 (42 and 43 Vic. c. 49, sec. 33). 

1866 (29 and 30 Vic. c. 118, sec. 14). 

* It is claimed that Dublin first adopted the American idea. 


of creating such courts generally ; and many cities have 
followed the example of Birmingham. 1 

The London County Council prepared a reform 
based upon the principles of (1) special magistrates 
for children, (2) special courts, (3) special detention 
homes, (4) nomination of probation officers. 2 Especi- 
ally noticeable among the courts of the United King- 
dom are those of Bury, Bolton, Manchester, Birming- 
ham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Tunbridge- Wells, Swan- 
sea, Stockton, Hull, Coventry, York, Southport, Bev- 
erly, Scarborough, Greenock, Glasgow, Dundee, Dub- 
lin, and Cork. 

In Scotland, special arrangements have been intro- 
duced for the treatment of juvenile offenders at Glas- 
gow and Greenock: (1) Trial does not take place at 
ordinary sittings of the courts; (2) children under 
sixteen may not be confined in ordinary police cells; 
(3) probation officers are in daily attendance. 

At present (July 1908) a "Bill to Consolidate and 
Amend Laws Relating to Children and Young Per- 
sons" is pending in the British Parliament. This bill, 
introduced Feb. 10, 1908, provides for separation of 
juvenile offenders from adult criminals ; special treat- 
ment; separate courts; separate detention; parent re- 
sponsibility; entire abolishing of imprisonment for 
children, and of penal servitude for young persons. 

The bill has been favorably received by the country. 

1 See London Times. May 31. 1906. 

4 Compare BSrenger. op. ctt. p. 9, note 2. 


Canada. The Canadian Statute, R. S. 1906, c. 146, 
sec. 644, (57-58 Vic. c. 29) provides for trial of per- 
sons under sixteen without publicity, apart, and at 
suitable times, and for separation from other offen- 

Manitoba. Children's Probation Act, R. S., 1902, 
c. 22, (61 Vic. 1899, c. 651) provides for the care 
of neglected children by a salaried superintendent ; for 
their examination by a judge ; for placing them in in- 
dustrial schools and schools of refuge under state 
authority until the age of twenty-one; for payment by 
municipalities for the maintenance of certain neglected 
children ; for separate detention ; for attempt to secure 
foster homes; and for penalty for ill treatment. 

Ontario. The Ontario Children's Protection Act 
(R. S. Ontario 1897, c. 259) contains extensive pro- 
visions, which, although not as complete, are very sug- 
gestive of the Victoria act of 1906; cited infra. 

New Zealand. The Justices of the Peace Act, 1882, 
no. 15 (sec. 176), provides for summary trial unless 
objected to by parent or guardian, of children under 
twelve, and (sec. 177), with consent, of young persons 
(between ages of twelve and sixteen). The Chil T 
dren's Protection Act, 1890, no. 21, provides especf- 
ally for jurisdiction over all ill-treated, neglected, de- 
pendent, or exposed children. 

Victoria. Children's Court Act, 1906, no. 2058, 
provides a "children's court," to have jurisdiction 
over children under seventeen ; gives wide definition 
of "parents" and "juvenile offenders ;" specifies that 
children's court shall be held at every place within 


the state, where a court of petty sessions is appointed 
to be held ; that the governor may appoint, for any 
locality, any person or police magistrate, or any one 
or more justices of the peace within the place, to 
exercise jurisdiction of the children's court : and that 
the governor may appoint probation officers of either 
sex who shall be subject to orders of the court ; speci- 
fies the duties of probation officer; gives the juvenile 
court exclusive jurisdiction over all charges against 
children for felonies and misdemeanors, and allows 
it to hear and determine all information for offenses 
against any act punishable on summary conviction ; 
provides for exclusion of persons unnecessary to trial, 
for an independent register, trial within tw r enty-four 
hours of apprehension, detention where possible in 
one of the "special receiving depots ;" and provides 
for giving bail. The parent may be convicted of de- 
linquency and may be compelled to contribute toward 
support. This law leaves a very wide discretion with 
the judge. ''The court shall be guided by the real 
justice of the case without regard to legal forms and 
solemnities, and shall direct itself by the best evi- 
dence it can procure." The Governor in Council is 
also given wide powers for arranging for detention 
homes, forms of procedure, appointment of probation 
officer, and "prescribing in all matters necessary for 
carrying out this act." 1 

France. The law of June 5, 1850, provides for a 
separation of adults from juveniles in both prison 

1 For other British Colonies see #;>' under "History." 


and court, 1 and for education (industrial) of all 
minors imprisoned. Paris police stations have sepa- 
rate waiting rooms and there is a separate ''remand 
house" for temporary detention after judgment. Chil- 
dren may not ride in patrol wagons nor be escorted 
by "gardes" in uniform. 2 

The Committee of the Patronage de 1'Enfance pro- 
vides for legal defense of children brought before 
criminal courts. 3 

Laws, April 19, 1898, and April .12, 190(5, leave con- 
siderable discretionary power with the judges in deal- 
ing with juvenile cases. The probation system is 
being tried under the care of the Patronage de 1' En- 
fan c'e. An active committee is working for the per- 
fecting of a juvenile court system. 

Germany. The Law of July 2, 1900, for the Fiir- 
sorgeerziehung Minder jahriger (Guardianship of 
Minors) an extension of the Law of March 13, 
1878, includes a court of guardianship and provides 
elaborately for probation. 4 Any one may bring a 
neglected or offending child under eighteen to this 
court and such child may be removed entirely from 
parental care and into a state institution, or into a 
family, under care of a probation officer. Even of- 
fenders over eighteen may be sent to reformatories. 
The relation of the probation officer to his charge is 
more intimate than under the American system, for 

1 Russell and Rteby. oi>. cit. p. 239. 

2 Russell and Rigrby, on. cit. p. 171-2. 

3 Morrison, vp. cit. p. 183. 

4 Russell and Righy , oj>. cit. p. 250-64. 


the Fiirsorger has, as a rule, but one protege. Such 
protection may continue until the child reaches the 
age of twenty-one. Detailed reports and records are 
required. 1 

Holland. Holland has special statutes providing 
for substituting state guardianship and maintenance 
for parental control; providing for reprimand and 
conditional condemnation before sentencing delin- 
quents to reformatory; and private court proceedings. 
The age of juvenile jurisdiction has been raised to 
eighteen. 2 

Hungary. Children between twelve and sixteen 
cannot be punished. They may be confined in houses 
of correction to which also may be admitted minors 
and destitue children not over eighteen. Special care 
ceases at the age of twenty. Hungary has especially 
developed its system of homes for dependent and 
neglected children. 3 

Sweden. Children under fifteen are not brought 
before the ordinary courts, but before a commission 
whose chairman is a clergyman, the other members 
being school teachers, legal men, etc. Certain men do 
work approximating that of the probation officer, be- 
ing paid for each special case. 

1 Russell and Rigby, op. eft. p. 141-142. 

2 ib.. 279-286. 
s lb., 30. 


United States 


Purpose. An excellent enunciation of the princi- 
ples underlying juvenile court legislation appears in 
the following, the preamble to the Louisiana Law of 
1906 (c. 82, p. 134): "Whereas the welfare of the 
State demands that children should be guarded from 
association and contact with crime and criminals and 
the ordinary process of the criminal law does not pro- 
vide such treatment and care and moral encourage- 
ment as are essential to all children in the formative 
period of life, but endangers the whole future of the 
child ; and, 

"Whereas, experience has shown that children lack- 
ing proper parental care or guardianship, are led into 
courses of life which may render them liable to the 
pains and penalties of the criminal law of the State, 
although the real interests of such child or children re- 
quire that they be not incarcerated in penitentiaries 
and jails as members of the criminal class, but be 
subjected to a wise care, treatment, and control, that 
their evil tendencies may be checked and their better 
instincts may be strengthened; and, 

"Whereas, to that end it is important that the 
powers of the courts, in respect to the care, treatment 
and control over dependent, neglected, delinquent, and 
incorrigible children should be clearly distinguished 
from the powers exercised in the administration of 
the criminal law : 

"Be it enacted . 


Title. Certain statutes have been declared by the 
courts to have insufficient and inadequate titles. 

For :ood examples of Titles, see California, 11)05, c. 610; 
Colorado, 11)07, c. 140: Michigan, 1!)07, no. 325: Oregon. 1907, 
c. HI: and Utah. 1007, c. 139. 

Definitions. Most statutes provide for three classes 
of children dependent, neglected, and delinquent. 

Especially "rood definitions of these are found in Colorado, 
1903, c. 85 and 1907, c. 168: Illinois, 1905. May 16, p. 152: 
Ohio, 1908, Apr. 21, sees. 5, (i: Oregon, 1907, c. H4, sec. 1; 
I'tah, 1903, c. 124, sec. 2, and 1907, c. 139, sec. 1H: Arizona, 
1907, c. 78, sec. 1. Louisiana,. 1906, c. 82, sec. 1, mentions also 
"incorrigibles". Massachusetts, 1906. c. 413, sec. 1, includes 
"\vay\vard children." 1 . 

Courts. Statutes provide that jurisdiction in juve- 
nile cases shall lie as follows : Arizona, Iowa, Min- 
nesota. Montana, Nebraska District Courts ; Illi- 
nois Circuit and County Courts ; Missouri Circuit 
Court ; Louisiana and Texas District and County 
Courts ; Michigan Circuit and Probate Courts ; Kan- 
sas -and Oregon County Court; New Jersey Court 
of Common Pleas ; Idaho and Kansas Probate Court ; 
Wisconsin Courts of Record in the several Coun- 
ties ; Washington Superior Courts in Special Ses- 
sion ; New York Court of Special Sessions ; Pennsyl- 
vania Quarter Sessions of the Peace ; California- 
Superior Court or Justices Court or Police Court in 
Special Sessions; Ohio Courts of Common Pleas, 
Probate Courts, Insolvency Courts and Superior 
Courts ; New Hampshire Police Court and Justices 
Courts ; Alabama" Chancery Court or any Court hav- 
ing equal powers and jurisdiction ; Colorado, District 

1 Cf. Report of the Probation Commission of New York. p. SIT). 


of Columbia, Indiana, Maryland, Utah special Juve- 
nile Courts. 

Aye limits. The tendency in recent legislation has 
been to raise the limit of age tinder which cases shall 
be subject, in the first instance, to juvenile jurisdic- 
tion. Present statutes set the limit as follows : Ala- 
bama fourteen; Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 
Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, 
New Jersey, New York. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
Tennessee, Texas. Wisconsin sixteen ; District of 
Columbia, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wash- 
ington seventeen ; Indiana males sixteen, females 
seventeen ; Illinois and Kentucky males' ^seventeen, 
females eighteen; Nebraska (1907), Oregon (1907), 
and Utah (190?) eighteen. In many cases the juris- 
diction of the court continues to twenty-one. 1 

Trial. Most of the statutes allow summary juris- 
diction except where the pfea "not guilty" or demand 
for trial by jury is made.- In general the effort is 
made to have a juvenile court room separate from any 
other court room. In several cities the court has a 
separate building with both court and detention facili- 
ties. \Vhere a special room is impossible most stat- 
utes provide that the juvenile court shall not be held 
within two hours of the holding of any other court 
in the same room. Sessions shall be made as private 
as possible, only persons necessary to the trial or to 
the interests of the child being admitted. Some courts 

'Seee. >.'.. statutes of Colorado. Illinois. Ohio. Kansas and Tennes- 

"See ... jr.. statutes of A ri/ona. !!;>:. c. 78, sec. :?: MirhUran. 1!W. c. 314, 
see. 3: Texas. I'.tor. c. H. sec-. -2. 


are in session daily; others, one, two, or more, days 
per week. 

Appeal. 1 The right of appeal is as a rule expressly 
provided for. Some statutes however omit this pro- 

Probation officers. The principle of probation has 
been even more widely accepted than that of juvenile 
courts. Probation officers are appointed as follows : 
By the Court in Alabama, Arizona, District of Co- 
lumbia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Ken- 
tucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Ten- 
nessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wiscon- 
sin ; by the Court, subject to the approval of the State 
Board of Charities in Colorado ; by a probation Com- 
mission, on approval of the court in California. The 
Governor in Michigan appoints "County Agents" who 
act under the supervision of the State Board of Cor- 
rections and Charities. The State Board of Correc- 
tions and Charities appoints in Rhode Island. Wis- 
consin has a special procedure. 2 

Provision for the compensation of probation officers 
is made in the statutes of Alabama, Colorado. District 
of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mis- 

Colorado, 1907. e. 149. sec. 15: Indiana. 1907. c. 13*5. sec. 1: 
Utah. 1907, c. 139. sec. 7: Wisconsin Sess. Laws. 1907. sec. 573-4i. sub. sec. 
3. Kansas, 1905, c. 190. sec. 12. For judicial decisions, see p. 30ff . 
"See Sess. Laws, 1907. Sec. 573-2, sub-sec. 4. 


souri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, 
Utah, Wisconsin. 1 

Procedure. The rules laid down in different stat- 
utes vary widely. 2 Generally, however, they follow 
somewhat the line indicated in the Colorado Statutes. 
In some cases a complaint and information by the 
prosecuting attorney is required for cases of delin- 
quency. 3 In most States emphasis is laid on the fact 
that the procedure is not a trial. 4 

Disposition of Children. In cases of dependent and 
neglected children, the laws allow the judge to use 
wide discretion in leaving children with parents or 
guardians one or the other, or both, being on proba- 
tion or placing them with families or in private or 
public institutions. 5 

Parent Contribution. Most states allow the judge 
when placing the child in an institution or home, to 
assess the parent of the child a reasonable sum (usu- 
ally with a maximum prescribed) monthly, for its 
support. 6 

Adult Delinquency oJ- Responsibility. Parents, etc. 
whom the judge considers responsible for the condi- 
tion or action of the child may be fined in sums rang- 
ing from $100 to $1,000, or imprisonment from six 

compare Tables in Helen Page Rates' Digest, Charities. 1904-5. 
vol. 13. p. 32J1-39. 

s Compare Michigan. 15107. no. 125, sees. 5-8: and Texas. 1!07. no. 45. sees. 
4, 5. 9. 

'Compare U. S. Statutes (D. C.) 1907. e. 9SO. sees. 12-23. 

4 Compare Michigan, 1907. c. 325, sec. 2. 

Compare Michigan. 1907, c. 325. sec. 7: Texas. 1907. c. 45, sec. 7: Ohio. 
1908, Apr. 24, sees. 12-13. 

Compare Arizona. H107. c. 78. sec. 5: Kentucky. 190t>. c. (54, sec. 9: 
Michigan, 1907. no. 325. sec. !>: Washington. 1907. c. 110, sec. 15. 


months to one year, or both. The following states 
have special provisions : Alabama, Colorado, District 
of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Mas- 
sachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Montana, Nebraska,. 
New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Oregon. 1 

Detention Homes. Many states have authorized or 
ordered the building of special detention homes where 
children may be kept both while awaiting and after 
trial, also for short periods of confinement. 

Religious Faith and Family Care. As a rule there 
is added to the provisions for disposing of cases of 
neglected and dependent children where placed in pri- 
vate homes or institutions, that attention be given to 
the religion of the parents, or of the child. 2 

Educational Clauses. Some states especially in- 
clude in juvenile -court law provisions for the educa- 
tion of the child." 


Fourteen States have no juvenile court or proba- 
tion laws. Of these, several have institutions which 
approximate juvenile court work. Many of the stat- 
utes of others have been cited above. It will be suffi- 
cient here, avoiding repetition, to mention certain 
features of various statutes and to quote extensively 
from the statutes of one or two states. 

1 Compare Colorado. 1903. c. 94. sec. 1 : and 1905. c. 81 : District of Co- 
lumbia, I). S. Stat. 1906. c. 9(50. sec. 24: Illinois. 1905. May 13. p. 189: In- 
diana. 1905. c. 145. and 1907. c. 169: Minnesota. 1907, c. 92: Michigan, 
1907, no. 314: Ohio. 1908. April 24, sees. 11, 14-19. 

2 Compare Ari/ona. 1907. c. 78. sec. 10: California. 1905, c. 610. sec. 20: 
Colorado. 1907. c. 168. sec. 8: Iowa. 1904, c. 11. sec. 15. 

'Compare Idaho. 1905. Mar. 2. p. 106. sec. 9: Illinois. 1907, Apr. 19, p. 69 r 
sec. 8. 


Alabama. 190?, no. :UO, Mar. 12. "Trial shall be 
so conducted as to disarm the child's fears and win 
its respect and confidence, (sec. 15). A penalty is 
provided for interfering with or opposing the work of 
the probation officer or making false statement con- 
cerning that which he has the right to know. 

Arizona. 190?. c. 78, is a brief, clearly written stat- 
ute, without cumbersome phraseology, and establish- 
ing a simple system. 

California. Good laws, as amended, 1905, c. 579 
and c. 610. 

Colorado. 1907, c. 149, 1 contains a complete title 
"An act establishing juvenile court in each county, 
and in each municipality known and designated as a 
city or county, within this state, in which there are . 
one hundred thousand or more inhabitants, and to 
prescribe the jurisdiction, powers, rights, proceedings 
and practice of such courts, and to define the rights, 
powers, duties, and qualifications of the judges and 
other officers connected therewith, and to provide for 
the maintenance thereof. . . ." 

The Colorado statutes, collectively, provide that the 
juvenile court shall have original jurisdiction in all 
criminal cases in which the disposition of any child 
or minor or other person under the acts concerning 
dependent, neglected, or delinquent children is in ques- 
tion ; it shall be a court of record with the powers 
and manner of procedure of other courts of record; 

1 "Judge Lindsey's ambition to create a juvenile court in this city 
[Denver], which will be the model for the world, has long been known, 
and it is believed that his opportunity has arrived." Juvenile Court 
Record. May. W>". p. 4. 


shall sit for three terms per year; the judge shall be 
elected and shall have a salary of $4,000 per annum, 
and shall receive no other salary, neither shall he act 
as attorney or counsellor at law; the judge shall ap- 
point all officers of the court and fix their salaries; 
there shall be probation officers in counties of more 
than 100,000, not more than three of whom shall be 
under the public pay; and there shall be as many as- 
sistants as the judge and county commissioners shall 
think necessary; the chief probation officers to re- 
ceive $1,500 per annum, and two others $1,200 ; 
appointments made by the judge shall be approved 
by the State Board of Charities and Corrections; 
in all counties with a population exceeding 15,000 
there shall be not less than one probation officer, 
who shall receive a salary fixed, by the board of 
county commissioners ; paid probation officers are 
vested with the powers of sheriff; the county com- 
missioner shall provide the sum necessary for the 
maintenance of the court officers and the detention 
home, and shall provide court room and supplies ; trial 
by jury may be demanded by the parties entitled to 
it; the right of appeal shall be the same as in civil 
cases ; the child may have the right of bond ; no child 
under fourteen shall be placed in jail; and counties 
of the first class shall provide, at the public expense, 
a detention room or house, separate from the jail. 1 
Connecticut has Probation Officers (1905, c. 142). 

'For the Colorado Laws (except 1907 Law) see Lindsey: Juvenile 
Court Law of Colorado, p. 18-59. On the 1907 law. see Charities. 1907, 
April 13. p. 71-72. 


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 Chil- 
dren 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 offi- 
cers, prosecution on information by the corporation 
counsel or his assistant ; and is especially good on pro- 
cedure (sees. 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 state- 
ment 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 de- 
tention 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 pro- 
bation officers. 


Maine has a Probation Law. 

Maryland has Juvenile Court Laws for the city of 

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 ajid 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. 

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

AYw Jersey has both Probation and Juvenile Court 

A>a ? 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 depend- 
ent and neglected children. A carefully drawn law. 

Oklahoma has special legislation concerning juve- 
nile offenders. 

1 ''This statute is already being found fault with, however, as provid- 
ing no method for caring for any child between the age of seven and 
twelve having pronounced criminal tendencies." Judge Konhert, 
quoted in Charities. November hi. 11K>7, p. 1071. 


Oregon. 190?, c. 34. Complete, concise, well ar- 

Pennsylvania has both Juvenile Court and Proba- 
tion Laws. 

Rhode Island has a Juvenile Probation System. 

Tennessee has Juvenile Courts and Juvenile Proba- 

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 Juve- 
nile Court Commission consisting of the Governor, 
Attorney General and State Superintendent of Public 
Instruction. Contains (sec. 5) a statement of alter- 
native decrees and judgments, and (sec. 11) the duties 
of the probation officers. Adds to the Ohio defini- 
tions. May be read profitably in connection with the 
decision of the Utah Supreme Court in 1907, Mill 
y. 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 pro- 
vide a special method for the appointment and em- 
ployment of probation officers. (Sess. Laws, 1907. 
Sec. 573-2, Sub-sec. 4.) 1 

'Compare methods suggested by the New York Probation Commis- 
sion Report, 1905. Appendix A. p. 101-10t>. 



Constitutionality of Statutes 

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

Mansfield's Case. In Mansfield's Case, 22 Pa. Su- 
perior Court 224, (1903) the Pennsylvania Law of 
1901, c. 185, (P. L. 279) establishing juvenile courts 
and the probation system, was declared unconstitu- 
tional. 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 interpreta- 
tion given it, that the act was special legislation inas- 
much as it classified children and discriminated be- 
tween 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 legisla- 
ture of Pennsylvania subsequently reenacted the stat- 
ute 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 exer- 
cised. 1 

Ex parte Loving. In ex parte Loving, 178 Mis- 
souri 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 differ- 
ent classes, the title being "children"; that the limita- 
tion 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, J.903, 
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. 


charged with crime, of their constitutional right of 
trial by jury as the proceeding of the juvenile court 
is not a trial for offense such as requires a jury ; that 
it is not class legislation, all children under sixteen 
being included in its operation; that the purpose of 
the act is not trial nor punishment, but to prevent trial 
and to prevent the necessity for punishment. 1 

Hunt v. Wayne Circuit Judges. In Hunt v. Wayne 
Circuit Judges, 142 Michigan 93, 7 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 
821, (Dec. 4, 1905), the Michigan Statute, 1905, no. 
312, was declared unconstitutional. It was held that 
the act conferred powers on the circuit court com- 
missioners of certain counties beyond their constitu- 
tional rights ; that it failed in those counties, and con- 
sequently throughout the whole State, because it failed 
to establish a uniform method. 2 

Mill v. Brown. 5 In Mill v. Brown, 31 Utah 473, 
88 Pac. Rep. 609, (Jan. 17, 1907), the Utah Supreme 
Court declared the Utah Statute, 1905, c. 117, estab- 
lishing the juvenile court and probation system, valid, 
with the exception of sec. 7. It was held that sec. 
7, providing that the parent of a child adjudged a de r 
linquent may be brought before the court, and, if 
found guilty of contributing to the delinquency, be 
condemned to certain penalties, was unconstitutional 

inion in this case contains an excellent review of opinions and 
cases bearing upon the principles involved in the juvenile court system. 
Compare 5 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 92 fl, and especially note on p. 96. 

a The opinions of five judges of the circuit court auoted in this case 
are interesting. On pages 155 of 142 Mich., and 829 of 7 A. & E. Ann. 
Cas. appears a bibliography of cases. See also 7 A. & E. Ann. Cas. p. 
830, note. 

3 "The clearest ana most lucid announcement of the law which has 
ever been written on that subject." Juvenile Court Record. May. 1907, 
p. 16. 


as denying such parent the right of trial by jury as 
for any other crime ; but that the statute is not other- 
wise affected by the invalidity of sec. 7, which was 
not connected with its principal provisions; that the 
question of the right of the judge to hold office can- 
not be considered, although the constitutionality of 
the statute on which his acts depend may be; that it 
is within the power of the legislature to create juve- 
nile courts, conferring upon them jurisdiction and 
powers previously exercised by the District Court, 
(Utah Const., art. 8, sec. 1) ; that creating juvenile 
courts in cities of the first and second class is not 
special legislation; that the statute in question is not 
an amending act though it incidentally affects some 
older laws; that the creating of juvenile courts hav- 
ing for object the surrounding of the children with 
proper environment is not criminal law and violates 
no constitutional provisions because not providing for 
trial by jury, for arraignment and plea, for notice to 
parents, or because of the manner of the trial, or be- 
cause of the child's being required to be a witness; 
that even though the express provisions of the statute 
do not require the court in removing the child from 
the custody of parents and placing it under other 
custody, to find in addition to delinquency of the 
child, parental incompetency or neglect, yet, there, be- 
ing no provisions to the contrary, the act will be con- 
structed to require it in view of Utah R. S. 1898, sec. 
82, which provides that the parent cannot be deprived 
of the custody of the child unless he is adjudged in- 
competent to have such custody. 


Decisions which affect various principles em- 
bodied in juvenile court legislation or ad- 

The power of the legislature. As to the state 
guardianship of children generally, see Whalen v. 
Ohmstead, (Conn.) 15 L. R. A. 593, note, "State 
Guardianship of Children." 

The State has the power to detain and educate 
minor offenders. Ex parte Nichols, 110 Cal. 651 ; 
Jarrard v. State, 116 Ind. 98. 

On the duty of the state to protect dependent and 
unfortunate infants : McLean Co. v. Humphreys, 104 
111. 378. "The duty of the legislature to determine by 
rules and definitions the class or classes requiring it 
and to impose state supervision, is no longer open to 
question. 1 ' Hunt v. Wayne Circuit Judges. For bib- 
liography of cases on this point, see 7 A. & E. Ann. 
Cas. 829. 

On the constitutionality of the statutes providing 
for commitment of wayward children to institutions 
or to proper guardianship without jury trial, see 5 
A. & E. Ann. Cas. 96, note. 

The employment of private institutions for the care 
of the child is an appropriate means to performing 
the duties of the state, and is, therefore, constitutional. 
See Wis. Industrial School v. Clark County, 103 Wis. 

The statute authorizing the commitment to the State 
Industrial School of children who for want of proper 
parental care are growing up in mendicancy and crime, 
under sixteen, is valid, but is not valid as to children 


over that age who have not been duly convicted of 
crime. Scott v. Flowers, 61 Neb. 620, and 85 N. W. 

The court: character and extent of its jurisdiction. 
Chancery-power. The power conferred on the county 
court by this act is of the same character as the juris- 
diction exercised by the court of chancery over in- 
fants, having its foundation in the jurisdiction of the 
crown as parens patriae to protect that which has no 
lawful protector. In re Ferrier, 103 111. 367; Dinson 
v. Drosta, Appellate Court of Indiana, Div. no. 2, 
Jan. 1907 ; 80 N. E. Rep. 32. Cf Cent. Dig., vol. 31, 

The power conferred by statute on Circuit Courts 
to appoint guardians is merely declaratory of the 
chancery powers which they already possessed. See 
Board of Guardians v. Shutter, 139 Ind. 268; 
also People v. Mercein, 25 Wendell 64, 35 Am. 
Dec. 653; Richards v. Collins, 45 N. J. Eq. 283, 14 
Am. Rep. 726; Industrial School v. Clark County, 
103 Wis. 651. 

All courts having power to issue writs of habeas 
corpus to hear and determine cases arising under them 
may control under certain circumstances the custody, 
education and management of minor children. Com- 
monwealth v. Barney, 29 Leg. Int. 317. See also ex 
parte Nicholl, 110 Cal. 651 ; Roth v. House of Refuge, 
31 Md. 329; ex parte Crouse, 4 Wharton (Pa.) 9. 

Decrees of the juvenile court are not for punish- 
ment, but for reformation. Ex parte Nicholl; in re 
Ferrier; and Mill v. Brown. 


Jury Trial. "In by far the greater number of cases 
which have passed upon this question it has been held 
that a statute which authorizes the commitment, with- 
out jury trial to a reformatory, house of correction, 
or refuge, of children who are incorrigible or lack 
proper parental care, is constitutional." See 5 A. & E. 
Ann. Cas. 92, p. 96. 

Appeal. It has in several instances been decided 
that in the absence of statutory provisions, there is 
no appeal from the judgment of the judge of the juve- 
nile court. Dinson v. Drosta, Appellate Court Ind., 
Div. no. 2, Jan. 1907; 80 N. E. Rep. 32. See Elliot: 
Appellate Procedure, 75. 

Legal rights of the parent. In some cases it has 
been held that the parent has a right to notice of 
proceedings, and in others that the parent has no such 
right. See Cincinnati House of Refuge v. Ryan, 37 
Ohio State 197; in re Kelly, 152 Mass. 432; In re 
Wares, 161 Mass. 70. 

The child cannot be taken from the parent or 
guardian unless the parent or guardian is shown to 
be an unfit person to have the custody of the child, 
or has been convicted of neglect. Cf . Milwaukee In- 
dustrial School v. Supervisors, 40 Wis. 328; People 
ex rel McEntee v. Lynch, 223 111. 346 ; Mill v. Brown, 
31 Utah 473. 

Custody of the parents or. guardian will not pre- 
vail if it imperils the personal safety, morals, or 
health of the child, and the court will scrutinize the 
conditions and circumstances in determining the dis- 


position of the child. Cf. Richards v. Collins, 45 
N. J. Eq. 283. 

Custody and Disposition of the Child. See Cin- 
cinnati House of Refuge v. Ryan, 37 Ohio State, 
197 ; Farnham v. Pierce, 141 Mass. 203 ; In re Wares, 
161 Mass. 70; In re Kelley, 152 Mass. 433; In re 
Ferrier, 103 111. 367 ; 27 Cent. Dig. "Infants," sees. 13, 
18, 19. Cf. supra; "Powers of the Legislature and 
the Court." 

Reformatories etc.: Legal status of, and character 
cf commitment to. The view taken in the majority 
of cases is that the institutions and reformatories to 
which children are committed are not prisons or peni- 
tentiaries, but schools "where children who may 
be exposed by conditions of misfortune, or who may 
perversely expose themselves to immoral surround- 
ings and influences, may be kept under reasonable re- 
straint during their minority, not as punishment for 
crime, but for their moral and physical well being." 
5 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 96, note. Cf. Olson v. Brown, 
50 Minn. 353 ; McLean County v. Humphreys, 104 111. 
378; In re Ferrier, 103 111. 367; Scott v. Flowers, 
61 Neb. 620. 

Habeas Corpus: Children taken from the custody 
of the parents, etc. See ex parte Grouse, 4 Wharton 
9; Farnham v. Pierce, 141 Mass. 203, 55 Am. Rep. 
452, note p. 456; ex parte Nicholl, 110 Cal. 651; 
People ex rel McEntee v. Lynch, 223 111. 346. 



From the preceding pages it will be seen that two- 
thirds of the states have already passed special juvenile 
court or probation laws, or both, and with few ex- 
ceptions, laws concerning adult delinquincy. There 
exist in many of the other states statutes embody- 
ing some of the underlying principles of juvenile 
court legislation. Juvenile court laws as they exist 
to-day are the result of experiment, and, in those 
states which lead in juvenile court legislation, repre- 
sent constant effort to profit by and embody the results 
of experience in new and improved legislation. It 
has apparently been found possible in some states to 
approximate the work of the juvenile court without 
special legislation, but as a rule separate laws uniting 
the features essential to the effective application of 
those principles, have greatly facilitated the work. 
Experience, both of the actual working and of the 
legality of juvenile court legislation has now been 

1 See Lindsey : The Juvenile Court Laws of Colorado, especially p. 8 ff . 
What is Necessary; and p. 59 ff, A Word as to the Preparation of Juve- 
nile Laws for Other States. 

See H. B. Hurd: Minimum Principles Which Should be Stood for, 
Charities, 1905, p. 325. 

See recommendation of the New York Probation Commission. Re- 
port, p. 93 ff., App. A. 


sufficient to make it possible to suggest certain fea- 
tures upon which emphasis is to be laid. 

In general, it may be said that the code should 
not be hard and fast. It should be elastic. "Where 
juvenile court law covers a whole state, a uniform 
system should be adopted for practicability." "Due 
regard should be had for the statutes already on the 
books." "The institutions and methods in vogue within 
the state in dealing with children and the relations of 
parent and child, parent and state, and state and child, 
should be carefully studied and new legislation 
adapted to local conditions and resources." 

The title should be clear, comprehensive, and suffi- 
cient. It has been held advisable in several cases 
to enact laws in several different acts in order to 
avoid difficulties with title. 

The definition of neglected, dependent, and espe- 
cially of delinquent, children should be made broad, 
and the age limit for juvenile jurisdiction should be 
made as high as consistent with the general laws. 

Jurisdiction should be given to courts with chan- 
cery power. 1 It is not necessary that new courts be 
established, though it has been found in some places 
the most satisfactory method. It is generally agreed 
that there should be one judge rather than several 

1 "We consider it a step backward to provide for a special court lim- 
ited to children's cases only, unless it is given general unlimited crim- 
inal and chancery court jurisdiction in order that it may successfully 
handle all cases against or concerning adults where a child is involved." 
Lindsey. in International Prison Committee report. 1904. p. 64. 


in rotation who shall be (exclusively, if possible) 
a juvenile court judge. 1 

Provision should be made for separate room, if 
possible, in a special building devoted to the needs of 
the juvenile court. There should be a waiting room 
so that cases may be dealt with one at a time. 

The trial should be private, informal, and con- 
ducted on the principle of "the saving, not the punish- 
ment or restraint of the child." Proceedings etc. 
must be left largely to be determined by local needs 
and conditions. 2 . 

To avoid constitutional difficulties, the statutes should 
provide for jury and counsel where demanded, and 
should provide for prosecution by the state's attorney 
where demanded. 3 

Judge Williams, Justice Ohmstead, Miss Julia 
Lathrop, Judge Lindsey, and many other writers upon 
juvenile courts insist upon the detention home as 
one of the most important aids in the work of dealing 
with delinquent children. 

The statutes should provide for paid probation of- 
ficers having the power of sheriffs. It is generally 
agreed that probation officers should receive public 
compensation and that the paid probation system is 
more effective than the unpaid. 4 The choice of pro- 

1 " not one who merely takes his turn after adult cases." "The con- 
stant rotation is destructive of real success." The judge should be "in- 
timately acquainted with child nature and with various institutions 
and methods that may he employed to help the child." 

* Cf. Lindsey, in International Prison Report. 1904, p. 64. 

3 Cf. Lindsey, Juvenile Court Law of Colorado, p. 26. 

4 S. J. Barrows, in International Prison Report. 1904.. p. XII. cf. Mrs. 
D. Sheffield, in Legislation in Regard to Children, p. 35-6. 


bation officers should be left to the Court, 1 or the 
Court subject to the approval of special Commissions, 
Boards of Charities, Probation Commissions etc. Ju- 
venile Court Commissions are gaining in favor. 2 
Examinations of the nature of civil service examina- 
tions for preliminary qualifications, have been tried 
in some states. 3 

The principle of adult ("contributory") delinquency 
is recognized in nearly all recent legislation. 4 

The judge should be given power to suspend sen- 
tences, that is, to put the responsible party upon pro- 

A feature new to legislation, though not to practice, 
is that of forbidding all newspaper and other pub- 
licity to cases which come before the juvenile court. 

Juvenile court workers are emphasizing the neces- 
sity for wise child labor laws, compulsory school laws, 
and general provision for the cooperation of the 
home, the school, and the employer, both preliminary 
and supplementary to juvenile court legislation. 8 

1 Charities, 1905-6, vol. 15, p. 758. 

* "The most notable recommendation of this [the New York Proba- 
tion] Commission is that of unpaid municipal probation commissions 
for cities of the first and second class. These commissions are proposed 
to be under the supervision of the State Board of Charities. . . ." 

Mrs. D. Sheffield, in Legislation in Regard to Children, p. 35-36. 

3 S. J. Barrows, In International Prison Report, 1904, p. XII. Lind- 
sey. Juvenile Court Law of Colorado. 1905, p. 8. 

4 "The most practicable and important new feature [of juvenile court 
legislation] is the enforcement of the legal responsibility upon the par- 
ents and the home for the moral and physical welfare of the child and 
the establishment of a practical and effectual system of probation in 
order to carry out these principles generally recognized in every state." 
Llndsey, Juvenile Court Law of Colorado, p. 159. 

8 See also Lindsey, in International Prison Report, 1904,p. 122-5. and 
Charities. 1904-5. vol. 13, p. 357. 

For blank forms etc., in use by juvenile courts, see Juvenile Court 
Laws of Colorado, p. 05-80 and B6renger, op. cit. p. 145-227.