SECOND EDITION 
 
 m 
 1 1 
 
 The Present Status of 
 Family Desertion and 
 Non-Support Laws 
 
 The person charging this material is re- 
 sponsible for its return on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books 
 are reasons for disciplinary action and may 
 result in dismissal from the University. 
 
 
 §> 
 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
 
 JAN 1 4 196$ 
 
 A 
 
 Vsi « * 
 
 L161— 0-1096 
 
* 
 
 SECOND EDITIC 
 
 T hi 
 
 
 of 
 
 id 
 
 vs 
 
 William H. Baldwin 
 
 I 
 
 t 
 
 \ 
 
B I2>3e> f 1 - 
 
^ T. / J 
 
 H 
 
 
 rx 
 
 
 O 
 
 A 
 
 % 
 
 I 
 
 THE PRESENT STATUS OF FAMILY DESER- 
 TION AND NON-SUPPORT LAWS* 
 
 WILLIAM H. BALDWIN 
 
 \Hl i' 
 
 The importance of the subject of family desertion and non-support 
 has not decreased during the last six years. Of the replies received 
 to the question addressed to many charitable and humane societies 
 throughout the country, as to whether the evil was decreasing or 
 increasing, nine per cent declare that it is decreasing, twenty-seven 
 per cent think it stationary, while sixty-four per cent declare that 
 it is increasing. It still occupies a large place in the work of every 
 Charity Organization Society, and the economic burden which it 
 imposes rests heavily on other agencies also. 
 
 The importance of the subject is emphasized in the social problems 
 connected with children, where it has come to be more fully under- 
 stood that juvenile delinquency and incorrigibility are often the direct 
 result of the lack of proper provision in the home for the physical 
 wants of the child, and that, even if food and clothing do' not render 
 moral teaching and discipline unnecessary, they must precede them 
 before the latter can be effective. 
 
 An examination of the laws of all the states at the beginning of 
 1905 showed that desertion or non-support, or both, was a misde- 
 meanor in forty states, a felony in four and a quasi-criminal offense in 
 ;one, while in Iowa, Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee and Texas there was 
 no law on the subject. 
 
 Since then, because of the increasing interest, fifty-two laws 
 bearing on the offense have been enacted by thirty states and terri- 
 tories, of which some are re-enactments or changes. Those passed 
 by the states of Arkansas, California (2), District of Columbia, 
 
 
 <ZJ 
 
 cr 
 
 Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts (2), Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New 
 
 * Delivered at the National Conference of Charities and Corrections, Poston, Mass., 
 June 10, 1911. 
 
 o 37155 
 
Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas make the 
 offense misdemeanor; those passed by California (2) (later), Connec- 
 ticut, Indiana (2), Iowa, Maine (later), Missouri, New York, North 
 Dakota, Ohio, Utah and Washington make the offense felony; four 
 passed by Colorado, Maryland, Michigan and Ohio provide for com- 
 pensation for men under sentence, and nineteen other laws passed 
 by various states relate to details concerning the definition, the evi- 
 dence or other features of the law. 
 
 In addition to these, the eighteen states of California, Colorado, 
 Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky (2), Minnesota, 
 Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio (2), Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
 South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and Washington passed twenty laws 
 making contributory dependency, or responsibility on the part of adults 
 for dependency and neglect in the case of children, a misdemeanor, 
 punishable in many cases by a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for one 
 year, or both. 
 
 The non-support law of Texas, passed in 1907, was declared 
 unconstitutional in 1909, but the contributory dependency law of that 
 year still protects children. 
 
 Revising the classification of the laws relating to desertion and 
 non-support as they! stood at the end of 1910, after the enactment of 
 all those given above, and listing each state according to the highest 
 grade of offense in any of its laws, the situation was as follows : 
 
 Misdemeanor — Alabama 
 
 Nevada 
 
 Arizona 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Colorado 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 Delaware 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 North Dakota 
 
 Florida 
 
 Oklahoma 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Idaho 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Kansas 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 South Dakota 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Texas 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Virginia 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 West Virginia 
 
 Montana 
 
 Wyoming — 36 
 
 2 
 
Felony — 
 
 California 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Maine 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Missouri 
 Nebraska 
 New York 
 Ohio 
 Utah 
 
 Washington 
 Wisconsin — 13 
 
 Tendency of Legislation 
 
 In this legislation of the last six years, three principal tendencies 
 are discernible : 
 
 1. To make the offense felony, chiefly, and in some cases solely 
 for the purpose of securing the extradition of offenders, but also to 
 make a greater impression upon them, perhaps on the principle of the 
 stronger the dose the better. 
 
 2. To hold parents or guardians responsible to the Juvenile 
 Court where they do or omit any acts which contribute to the depend- 
 ency or neglect, as well as to the delinquency, of the children for whom 
 they are responsible. 
 
 3. To establish special courts for dealing with cases of non- 
 support and neglect, such as the Domestic Relations Courts in Buffalo, 
 New York City and Chicago. 
 
 This last development is the most recent and not the least 
 important. 
 
 The Nature of the Offense 
 
 The offense to which these laws relate is peculiar. In reality it 
 consists of failure to support the family. It is often spoken of simply 
 as “family desertion” because, when a man deserts his family, whether 
 to avoid supporting them or for some other reason, he usually does 
 cease to support them, so that non-support, the important part of the 
 condition, is implied by desertion. 
 
 It is true that the father has duties, but the man who deserts is 
 often not very helpful as a parent, and if support was furnished, the 
 wife could, in many cases, manage the family as well without him. 
 Desertion often seems to be the graver crime, because the man can 
 make himself comfortable elsewhere, while if he remains at home he 
 must share the poverty which his failure to furnish support causes ; 
 but his offense against the public is the same in either case. 
 
 Some laws do not cover non-support alone because they make 
 the offense consist of desertion and non-support, but the law should 
 
 3 
 
cover either desertion or non-support, not only because it then applies 
 whether a man deserts or not, but also because non-support is, by its 
 nature, a continuing offense, for which a man may be punished any 
 number of times, while it has been held in some places that desertion 
 is a single act, for which a man cannot be punished more than once 
 unless he returns to live with his wife and again deserts. 
 
 Non-support at first glance seems to be a private matter. It 
 becomes a public offense when society is obliged to furnish support 
 for the family, or when the lack of it destroys the home and demoral- 
 izes the children. It should, therefore, be punished, but the punish- 
 ment is difficult because the question is complicated by the private 
 relations involved. Ordinarily the interests of the offender and the 
 injured party are adverse, or at least separate. The man who picks a 
 pocket may be punished indefinitely without further injury to the 
 person who has lost his purse. 
 
 It is not so in the case of non-support because, although it 
 deserves severe punishment as an offense against the public, it is 
 primarily an offense against the family, whose interest is dependent 
 upon the welfare of the man, and for this reason a punishment which 
 is quite appropriate for other crimes is not at all suitable for this. 
 Considering the man only, it would be quite proper to give him a 
 longer sentence than that of the pickpocket, but to do so in the ordinary 
 way would simply aggravate and emphasize the injury to the family. 
 The indignation so justly felt in behalf of innocent women, and 
 especially of helpless children, has prompted the enactment of some 
 laws involving very severe punishment. So far as these deter others 
 from similar acts they may be beneficial; but regard for the interests 
 of the family points to a different course and suggests that in this 
 offense, more than in any other, it is the part of wisdom to seek first, 
 whenever possible, to restore the normal family relations and benefit 
 the family while relieving society of the burden of punishing the 
 offender, and to make the punishment provided, which should be 
 sufficiently severe, tend towards this. 
 
 It is the conflict between this appreciation of the gravity of the 
 offense and a regard for the family, who are the first sufferers, which 
 has led to such diverse provisions in the various laws, and the best 
 law is one which combines these opposing considerations in a nice 
 adjustment. It is the failure on the part of many public officials to 
 realize that non-support is anything more than a private matter, and 
 so of little importance, which has interfered with the administration 
 of many laws, and sometimes practically nullified their best features. 
 
 4 
 
The Purpose of the Laws 
 
 The ultimate purpose of all these laws is to oblige the offender 
 to support the family properly, and to diminish the burden which 
 non-support lays upon the community ; and it is in the light of the 
 complex relations and influences that they must be considered. An 
 attempt to discover what the practical results of them, and of any 
 important changes in them, have been in each state during the last 
 five years revealed many difficulties, because of the conflicting 
 influences and purposes which surround the subject. 
 
 A small number of prosecutions may be due to a lack of interest 
 in the subject or to a less number of offenders ; the dismissal of la 
 large proportion of the cases brought may indicate a lack of zeal in 
 prosecuting them, or may be due to more earnest efforts to adjust 
 them and secure voluntary support without resorting to a trial in 
 Court ; and a proportionately large number imprisoned may show 
 either a certainty of punishment or a failure to effect the desired 
 result without it. The amounts collected for support from men 
 brought into Court would be the best test, but just comparisons are 
 difficult here, also, because the collections are made in different ways 
 in different places, and, when ordered to be paid directly to the wife, 
 no account is usually kept of them. 
 
 It was found to be impossible, also, to give even a brief account 
 of the situation in each of the many important states, which present 
 interesting features, within the limited time allotted ; and an attempt 
 will, therefore, be made to treat the general situation by topics, bring- 
 ing out in connection with them the conditions existing in various 
 states which bear upon the main features of the laws as they stand. 
 
 It is with a full realization of the difficulty of doing exact justice 
 to any state or community, but with the intention of stating the situa- 
 tion in each case referred to as fairly as possible, in order that both 
 the favorable and unfavorable features of each may" be helpful to those 
 who are struggling with this perplexing problem, that some account of 
 the more important developments is undertaken. 
 
 States Having Felony Laws 
 
 The number of states having felony laws has been increased from 
 four to thirteen. The reason for the change to felony in almost all, 
 if not all, of these has been to make the extradition of deserters who 
 have gone to other states possible. It was wholly unnecessary to make 
 the change on this account, as facts stated hereafter will show, but 
 there was also, in some cases, a belief that a severer punishment would 
 
be more effective. The very passage of such a law indicates an 
 increasing interest in the subject, and, as might have been expected, 
 the laws in some of these states are better enforced than in states which 
 have paid less attention to it. 
 
 As to these, it may be stated, generally, that prosecuting officers 
 think the severity of the law an advantage, because it enables them 
 to use the possible punishment as a club to. secure compliance with 
 the law, without an actual trial. Almost all these laws contain pro- 
 visions for release on a bond or promise to furnish support, or to 
 comply with an order to pay a certain sum at stated intervals; and it 
 often happens that when a man is brought before a justice or magis- 
 trate, who would otherwise be obliged to bind him over to a higher 
 Court because he cannot himself try the case, the offender, fearing 
 the possible punishment, makes the necessary promise and secures 
 his freedom. There is usually a provision for release in a similar way 
 when the man is brought up in the higher Court, so that in a large 
 number of cases the formality and expense of a jury trial are avoided. 
 So far as the terror inspired by a possible state prison sentence 
 prompts the man to do his duty, it is an advantage, and it is natural 
 that a prosecutor, who occupies a position antagonistic to the man 
 under consideration, should want to be able to punish him most 
 severely in case it finally becomes necessary to* try him, thinking little, 
 perhaps, of the additional suffering which this may cause those on 
 account of whose unhappy condition the proceeding has been 
 instituted. 
 
 On the other hand, those who are interested in the families, and 
 in the results which the prosecutions have on them, see another side 
 of the question. They find that the wife hesitates to charge her hus- 
 band with felony, that after having been nerved by ill-treatment to 
 do this she is apt to relent, and that there are difficulties connected 
 with the more severe charge which are absent from a proceeding 
 which is confined to the inferior Courts. 
 
 Referring briefly to the situation in the states which have passed 
 felony laws within the last six years, the change has made littlte 
 difference in Connecticut because of a wise provision that the lower 
 Courts should have power to render final judgment in all cases which 
 did not require a more severe punishment than they were able to 
 inflict under the old law. Not more than two per cent of the cases 
 reported have found their way beyond the Courts in which they were 
 tried under the previous law, and in no case has the penalty for felony 
 been inflicted. 
 
 In New York much interest was taken in the new law, particu- 
 
 6 
 
larly by the United Hebrew Charities of New York City, and by 
 the authorities in Buffalo, and many deserters who might have been 
 reached under the previous law, had it not been assumed that they 
 were beyond reach, were brought back. Statements made by Mr. 
 F. E. Wade, of Buffalo, to whose efforts the passage of the law was 
 largely due, at the State Conference in 1909, and by the United 
 Hebrew Charities, show that it has been well worth while to bring 
 these men back, because the sums which they have contributed to the 
 support of their families have been largely in excess of the expense 
 of extradition. 
 
 The felony law in New York, however, seems to be used only 
 when extradition is sought, and though the prosecutions in New York 
 City When brought are diligent and successful, they constituted less 
 than eight per cent of the complaints made in 1909 and 1910, when 
 there were 768 complaints, with only fifty-five prosecutions in Court 
 in the two years. The prosecutions under the felony law are appar- 
 ently less than two per cent of all those for desertion and non-support, 
 the remainder being brought under the misdemeanor and disorderly 
 persons laws, which will be spoken of later in connection with the 
 Domestic Relations Courts. 
 
 Six years ago the non-support law of California applied to 
 children only, but was changed to include the wife in 1907, and again 
 changed to make non-support of either wife or children a felony 
 on March 10, 1909. The offense under the cruelty statute was 
 changed to felony also on the following day. Neither law was changed 
 in any other respect, and it is definitely stated by several parties that 
 the purpose of raising the offense to felony was to secure extradition, 
 because a man coufd not be brought back from another state under a 
 misdemeanor charge, though there is one intimation that it was 
 thought it would be an advantage, by one advocate of the change, 
 to put the cases into the Superior Court. No instance could be 
 found of an attempt to reach a deserter under the former law. 
 
 Reports as to the effect of the change in California are conflicting, 
 depending on the point of view. The prosecuting officers in some 
 cities think the severity of the law an advantage because many cases 
 are settled without a final trial, though they also complain that wives 
 relent, and, when a final trial is necessary, there is a delay of perhaps 
 five weeks in San Francisco before the case is heard in the Superior 
 Court, on account of the preparation of the papers, during which 
 time the man lies in the jail. This may be regarded as a salutary 
 period of reflection, which will incline him to yield without trial, or 
 as a needless delay in reaching the end of the case. 
 
The Humane Society of San Francisco, which looks after most 
 of the cases, regrets the change because it has made it more difficult 
 to handle them. 
 
 Indiana, at the session of 1907, two days after passing a con- 
 tributory dependency law making non-support a misdemeanor, passed 
 a bill making desertion and non-support of wife or children felony, 
 and a week later another law, entitled a “child desertion” statute, 
 making non-support of children a felony. 
 
 The quick succession of these laws recalls the story of the man 
 who replied to the inquiry of the undertaker, after the death of his 
 mother-in-law, as to whether he should embalm, cremate or bury : 
 “Embalm, cremate and bury ; take no chances and Indiana seemed 
 to be very well equipped for handling men not inclined to properly 
 support their children. 
 
 There is less difficulty in the procedure under a felony law in 
 Indiana than in most other states, because the case may be begun by 
 an affidavit and without an indictment, except for treason and murder, 
 and the law does not require that all felony cases shall be tried by a 
 jury. The laws seem to be working very well. It has been possible 
 to handle in the City Courts of the larger cities, which are always' 
 in session, cases which have not involved a punishment greater than 
 misdemeanor, and the procedure in other cases has been less cumber- 
 some than it is in states like Pennsylvania, in which they must be 
 begun by an indictment and tried in every instance before a jury. 
 
 In Indianapolis ninety per cent of all prosecutions are brought 
 in the Juvenile Court on a misdemeanor charge, because this Court 
 is ‘better equipped for handling them and they £et better attention 
 there. 
 
 In Iowa, which had no law making non-support or desertion a 
 crime, all prosecutions must be brought under a felony charge. 
 Here, also, prosecuting officers display much interest and think the 
 severity of the law an advantage, but it is also stated that wives are 
 unwilling to institute or follow up prosecutions, and that the law is 
 too severe. On the whole, the results seem to have been very good. 
 
 In Maine, where the law six years ago was quite inadequate, a 
 good misdemeanor statute was passed in 1907, but the offense in this 
 was raised to felony in 1909, in order to provide for extradition, 
 * although no attempt had been made to bring back a deserter under 
 the misdemeanor law, and since then Maine has had a felony law 
 only. The number of prosecutions in Portland has been about the 
 same under each law, and the more cumbersome procedure has proved 
 to be a disadvantage, because the only man brought back from any 
 
 S 
 
state was obliged to lie in jail for three months awaiting the session 
 of the higher Court, in which alone he could be tried. The severer 
 sentence has never been imposed. 
 
 The law in Missouri was changed to felony as to children and 
 apprentices on June 4, 1909, but little seems to have , been accom- 
 plished under it because of a decided lack of interest. 
 
 No definite report of cases was received from Utah, but the 
 severity of the law which made the offense felony in 1907 is con- 
 sidered to be a disadvantage. 
 
 In Washington the change to felony was made in 1907 also, 
 and a good deal of interest has been taken in the execution of' , the 
 law. It has not been possible to get any data as to the number 1 of 
 prosecutions, but the officials who have charge of them seem well 
 pleased with the law. 
 
 Of the four states which had felony laws six years ago, 
 Michigan and Ohio had also misdemeanor laws, while Nebraska and 
 Wisconsin had not. The law in Nebraska seems to have been fairly 
 well enforced, but as the offense consists of desertion and non-sup- 
 port, it was not possible under it to reach non-support cases in which 
 a man did not desert. Instead of changing the existing law to apply 
 to desertion or non-support, it was thought best to pass another law 
 in 1909 which applies to non-support only, and makes the offense a. 
 misdemeanor; so that Nebraska now has two laws also. 
 
 Wisconsin has been working under a felony law only, and 
 though the prosecutions seem to have been numerous, with much 
 interest taken, complaint has been made that it is difficult to secure 
 convictions because of the serious charge. The number of men 
 committed to the state prison during the five years was sixty, 
 a larger number than in any other state except Ohio, though the 
 average sentence is one year as compared with two years in Ohio. 
 
 From Michigan the reports were somewhat meagre. It is stated 
 that the felony law is effective, more so~ in some respects than the 
 non-support law, but the relative number of prosecutions in each 
 could not be learned. 
 
 In no state is the problem of non-support and desertion dealt 
 with more effectively than in Ohio, where the laws have been care- 
 fully developed during an experience of many years. The strong 
 Humane Societies, which have charge of the matter in the different 
 cities, have been energetic in developing laws under which they 
 can make their prosecutions effective, and they have a state organiza- 
 tion which not only enables them to secure united and well-considered 
 action, but also to head off the sporadic and ill-considered impulses 
 
 9 
 
to improve the law which have left their mark upon so many statutes, 
 especially those relating to desertion and non-support. 
 
 The collections in the leading cities are large, but the cases are 
 almost all brought under the misdemeanor law, except when extra- 
 dition is desired. 
 
 Juvenile Courts 
 
 On account of the especial fitness of the Juvenile Court to deal 
 with questions involving family relations, there has been a growing 
 tendency to give it preference over the ordinary Courts by bringing 
 in it cases of non-support involving children, either under the con- 
 tributory dependency provision of the Juvenile Court law, or by the 
 transfer to it of the work formerly done under the non-support law 
 by the Police or Municipal Courts or justices. This change is taking 
 place in Cleveland, where the Humane Society, which two or three 
 years ago depended on the Police Court, now takes all its cases to 
 Judge Addams, partly because he can impose a longer sentence, but 
 mainly because they get better attention ; in Columbus, where prac- 
 tically all such cases go to Judge Black; in New Orleans, where 
 Judge Wilson is showing a great interest in this phase of wrongs to 
 children ; in Indianapolis, where nine-tenths of the cases are brought 
 before Judge Taylor instead of in the Criminal Court, and in Wash- 
 ington, where Judge DeLacy quickly discovered that non-support 
 lay at the bottom of many of the difficulties in which children found 
 themselves. 
 
 There are other places where this tendency is found, but in 
 some it has not yet been developed, because the Juvenile Court is 
 only part of another Court which is very busy, as the Probate 
 Court is in Ohio. Often the Juvenile Court is part of the same Court 
 in which non-support cases were being brought under the former 
 law, at the time the contributory act was passed. 
 
 Many Juvenile Court and probation officers concurred in the 
 opinion that the Juvenile Court ought to be given jurisdiction in all 
 non-support cases, because they are in line with the work of the 
 Court. They will undoubtedly receive more intelligent consideration 
 there than in Courts largely occupied with other cases, and any 
 possible objection to those cases in which adults only are concerned 
 can be obviated by arranging for the separate hearing which those 
 involving children should also have. 
 
 An amendment, giving the Juvenile Court in the District of 
 Columbia jurisdiction in all such cases, has been urged for four 
 years, and will undoubtedly be passed as soon as the House finds 
 time to give some attention to such matters relating to the District. 
 
 10 
 
Domestic Relations Courts 
 
 buffalo 
 
 The first Domestic Relations Court was instituted in March, 
 1909, in Buffalo, N. Y., when Judge Simon A. Nash, of the City 
 Court, disliking the idea of having women of good character who 
 » were compelled to prosecute cases of non-support come in contact 
 
 with others of different character, instituted a separate session for 
 such cases. When the Court was reorganized on January 1, 1910, 
 # Judge Nash, who is also the Juvenile Court judge, took charge of 
 
 the Domestic Relations part. 
 
 The method of procedure followed is for the Court to ascertain, 
 with the help of a first-class probation officer, the status of the case 
 when it first comes up or at a subsequent hearing, so as to remove 
 the difficulties by an earnest talk if possible. The first object sought 
 is reconciliation where this seems likely to last, next rebuilding of 
 character, and then the collection of money for the support of wife 
 and children. In the beginning attorneys were sometimes employed 
 by one or both sides, but after it was found that the Court was 
 endeavoring to act in the mutual interests of both, the appearance 
 of attorneys became infrequent, and the Court is thus able to deal 
 in its own way with the parties concerned. 
 
 When other efforts fail the Court sends the defendant to the 
 penitentiary for six months in default of a bond to support. It is 
 unfortunate that hard labor cannot be made a part of this sentence, 
 and that the man’s confinement means that the total support of the 
 family, while it lasts, falls on the public authorities or private 
 charity ; but it is stated that the men are usually willing to support 
 their families before the expiration of the term, and, if so, they are 
 released and put on probation, in charge of a probation officer, who 
 has already received information as to both husband and wife, and, 
 knowing all the circumstances, watches over the man after his release, 
 helps secure employment for him and sees that he reports regularly as 
 t to his work. 
 
 These excellent methods are having the results which might be 
 expected. The number of imprisonments is small, and the collections, 
 which were less than $2,000 in 1909, rose to $40,000 in 1910, and 
 are now being made at the rate of $5,000 per month, with a tendency 
 to increase. Some abandonment cases are also handled successfully in 
 the same way, but not having jurisdiction where the charge is felony 
 Judge Nash can only bind them over for the Grand Jury if his pre- 
 liminary steps do not succeed. 
 
 11 
 
NEW YORK CITY 
 
 In its final report, in April, 1910, the Page Commission recom- 
 mended that in the reorganization of the inferior Courts of criminal 
 jurisdiction in New York City a Domestic Relations Court be estab- 
 lished in Manhattan and another in Brooklyn, and this was done when 
 the law subsequently passed took effect on September 1, 1910. These 
 Courts have jurisdiction in all cases of non-support in which the 
 offender is charged with being a disorderly person, as well as in those 
 involving failure to support poor relatives, and two magistrates, who 
 were selected because of their fitness for dealing with such cases and 
 who sit alternately, were assigned to each. The Department of 
 Charities and Corrections has also established a Bureau of Domestic 
 Relations adjacent to each Court^ to which applications for relief 
 usually come first, and this bureau has been able to adjust many cases 
 and relieve the Court of a great deal of work without any detriment 
 to the interests of those concerned. 
 
 Previous Conditions in New York City 
 
 Prior to this time the procedure in such cases had not been 
 satisfactory. Women obliged to complain of their husbands had often 
 been forced to sit in Court while the cases of persons charged with 
 various crimes, which were considered to be more important, were 
 disposed of, and when the cases did come up, being only a part of the 
 magistrate's work, they were apt not to receive the attention which 
 they deserved. When continued, as is often necessary in dealing with 
 such cases, it frequently happened that the matter came up at a subse- 
 quent hearing before a judge to whom the case was entirely new, 
 which prevented consistent and intelligent treatment of any one case. 
 The result was that the magistrates took little interest in such cases ; 
 and, perhaps because of this general feeling in regard to them, some 
 of the probation officers, whose duty it was to look after the defendant 
 when released on an order to support, seemed to think their work 
 consisted in protecting the husband from the wife’s importunities 
 rather than in compelling him to make regular payments for the 
 support of the family. Even with the best intentions it was impossible, 
 because of the confusion of judges, for any one of them to do justice 
 to non-support cases, and Judge Cornell has said that he fully realized 
 that he was not able to handle them properly when they came before 
 him. 
 
 With the establishment of the Domestic Relations Courts the 
 situation was changed entirely. The four magistrates assigned to 
 them were selected because of their special fitness in character and 
 
 12 
 
temperament for securing the best results in such cases, and no' one 
 could take more interest in the accomplishment of this end than these 
 judges do. The very atmosphere of the court room and its sur- 
 roundings manifests this change. Both complainant and defendant 
 are given ample opportunity to bring out the facts, and the judges 
 make every effort to have the parties adjust their differences without 
 compulsion. This is often accomplished by an earnest admonition 
 from the Court or by a continuance to give the offender an opportunity 
 to take a wiser view of the situation; and, because the magistrates 
 continue to have the control of the cases, they are able, in any subse- 
 quent or final order, to be consistent with all that has gone before. 
 It is because of the satisfaction which arises from being able to 
 handle the cases properly in this way, and of an appreciation of the 
 great importance of the interests which they involve, which constant 
 consideration of the subject gives, that the judges have such an 
 interest in their work. 
 
 Some Present Drawbacks 
 
 There are, however, some drawbacks. First, the Court in Man- 
 hattan has no adequate system of probation, and the lack of it is 
 only imperfectly supplied by the Bureau of Domestic Relations. If 
 the Court, through competent probation officers, could thoroughly 
 investigate each case which comes up, and could also follow up men 
 who are ordered to make payments, the advantage would be great. 
 This is now being done in the Court in Brooklyn. 
 
 Second, the Courts are not in a position to punish as they deserve 
 the men who fail to comply with their orders or who, for any other 
 reason, need such punishment. The limit of the workhouse sentence 
 is six months, and the labor connected with it is not so hard as to be 
 a deterrent. All contribution to the family stops when the confinement 
 begins, and the result is that in many cases the wife soon joins her 
 husband in asking for his release Out of 123 men committed by 
 the Domestic Relations Court of Manhattan during the first seven 
 months of its existence, seventy-three, or nearly sixty per cent, had 
 been released up to May 19, 1911, by order of the Court, before com- 
 pleting the sentence, the average duration of their confinement being 
 forty-four days ; and as the sentences of thirty-seven out of the remain- 
 ing fifty had not expired at that time it is ‘possible that this percentage 
 may be still greater. 
 
 If these men had been forced to stay until they were willing to 
 support their families, and they themselves had asked to be released 
 
 13 
 
in order to do this, the results might be satisfactory; but when the 
 release is granted because the wife begs for it, as in so many of these 
 cases, it leaves the husband still in at least partial control of the field. 
 
 Third, the Domestic Relations Court cannot dispose, as the City 
 Court of Buffalo can, of those non-support cases in which the charge 
 is misdemeanor under Section 482 of the Penal Law, of which there 
 are a considerable number, but must bind them over to the Court of 
 Special Sessions for final action. This restricts the control of the 
 Court over these cases, and interferes with the best results. 
 
 Further than this, because a disorderly person is only a quasi- 
 criminal, the Court is unable, in most of the cases which come before 
 it, to reach the offender if he has gone, or afterwards goes, out of 
 the state, which it is so easy for him to do on account of the geo- 
 graphical position of New York City. So far as the merits of the 
 case or the proper action of the Court is concerned, it is really imma- 
 terial whether the man complained of is in Tarrytown or Jersey City, 
 and the Court ought to be put in position where it can reach him and 
 deal properly with him in either case. 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 Possibly under the influence of what had been done in Buffalo 
 and New York City, a Domestic Relations Court was established as 
 part of the Municipal Court of Chicago in Branch 8, under general 
 order No. 44 of the Chief Justice dated March 14, 1911. By a 
 further order the Court was given jurisdiction over all violations in 
 certain city ordinances relating to offenses in connection with minors, 
 and also of violations of certain state laws relating to desertion, con- 
 tributory dependency or delinquency, and some others. The Court 
 began operations on April 3, 1911, and the record for the remainder 
 of the month shows a total of 215 cases which originated in the 
 Court or were transferred from criminal branches, of which 122 were 
 disposed of, leaving ninety-three pending. Of these cases ninety, 
 or nearly forty per cent, were for abandonment of wife or child, and 
 forty-six for contributory dependency or delinquency. The Court 
 does not have jurisdiction in certain cases involving cruelty, drunken- 
 ness or disorderly conduct as related to husband and wife. 
 
 At the end of the first month Judge Goodnow said that the Court 
 had so far met their expectations, but added that they were just 
 reaching the point where they were beginning the “follow-up” work 
 in wife abandonment cases. By this was meant a systematic effort, 
 through influences which might properly be brought to bear, to secure 
 compliance with the orders of the Court or to effect a reconciliation 
 
 14 
 
of the husband with the family. While the time has not been suffi- 
 cient to reach any conclusions as to the effectiveness of this work, the 
 plan is excellent, and with the appreciative interest taken by the judge 
 in charge of the Court there is no doubt but that it will be successful. 
 
 The account given of these Domestic Relations Courts, in which 
 judges specially interested in the subject are dealing in a compre- 
 hensive, consistent and intelligent manner with cases of non-support, 
 with the definite purpose, not so much of punishing the offender as 
 of preserving or restoring the normal condition of the family and 
 securing, without punishment, results which discriminate punish- 
 ment, no matter how severe, could not possibly obtain, furnishes the 
 strongest evidence of a growing realization not only of the great 
 importance of this subject, but also of the particular difficulties con- 
 nected with it, which have been found so perplexing when the cases 
 were mixed with ordinary criminal cases, which are all of such a 
 different nature. 
 
 To give the Domestic Relations Courts in Buffalo and New York 
 City complete jurisdiction over all cases of failure to support wife or 
 children, whether accompanied by abandonment or not, would be 
 a logical and reasonable development of the present situation. The 
 Domestic Relations Court in Chicago, under the law of Illinois, where 
 the offense is a misdemeanor, has such jurisdiction and can reach 
 deserters in other states. The situation in New York State is quite 
 different, because the charge in the cases of which the Domestic Rela- 
 tions Court in New York City has complete jurisdiction, and which is 
 the only one which includes non-support of the wife, is only quasi- 
 criminal, and therefore not extraditable. Under Section 482 of the 
 Penal Law non-support of children is a misdemeanor, which is an 
 extraditable offense, but in these cases the Domestic Relations Court 
 in New York City can only bind the defendant over to the Court of 
 Special Sessions for trial, in case he does not plead guilty or agree 
 to obey the order of the magistrate in the Domestic Relations Court. 
 Some exceptions have already been made to the provision of the 
 Greater New York Charter which gives exclusive jurisdiction of 
 misdemeanors to the Court of Special Sessions, permitting magistrates 
 to dispose of them. If a further exception could be made as to non- 
 support cases, and the Domestic Relations Courts in New York were 
 given jurisdiction over this class of misdemeanors as a judge of the 
 Domestic Relations Court in Buffalo has in all classes of misdemeanor, 
 it would give the Domestic Relations Courts in New York better con- 
 trol of them and relieve the Court of Special Sessions to this extent. 
 
 15 
 
There is no apparent reason why non-support, which now subjects 
 a man to the charge of being a disorderly person, should not be made 
 a misdemeanor, and so a crime, as it actually is, leaving the jurisdiction 
 in these cases relating to non-support, above spoken of, in the Court 
 of Domestic Relations, where it now is, thus giving the Domestic 
 Relations Courts in Buffalo and New York City jurisdiction of all 
 non-support cases under the charge of misdemeanor. 
 
 This would clarify the present situation in New York City and 
 would further carry out the idea of the Page Commission by putting 
 the complete responsibility for all these cases in one Court specially 
 constituted for them. 
 
 SOME GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 
 The Grade of the Offense 
 
 A careful consideration of all the facts brought out indicates 
 that the offense should be misdemeanor, and not felony. There are 
 only two reasons for raising the offense to felony, the desire to be able 
 to reach deserters in other states, and an impulse to inflict a severe 
 punishment in order to more effectually repress the evil. The first 
 of these is much the more influential, but is wholly without foundation, 
 while the other is only partly so. 
 
 It is because the widespread, but entirely mistaken, impression 
 that extradition under a misdemeanor charge is impossible has done 
 so much to protect deserters, and because I have recently had letters 
 from men in almost every state which has made the offense felony in 
 the last five years, congratulating themselves that they can now do 
 just what they could have done before, and because those in other 
 states where the offense is misdemeanor write me that they have not 
 
 i 
 
 been able to extradite anybody because the offense is not felony, that 
 I want to make this point perfectly clear. 
 
 The right of extradition is conferred by the Constitution of the 
 United States (Art. IV, Sec. 2), which says: 
 
 “A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, 
 who shall flee from justice, and he found in another state, shall, on demand 
 of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered 
 up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. ' 
 
 It is confirmed by the Act of Congress, February 12, 1793, which 
 declares it to be the duty of the executive authority of the state on 
 which the demand is made to cause the fugitive to be delivered up ; 
 and by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States more 
 
 16 
 
than fifty years ago (24 Howard, U. S. 66), which states distinctly, 
 in reference to the words “treason, felony or other crime,” that 
 
 “The word ‘crime’ of itself includes every offense, from the highest 
 to the lowest in the grade of offenses, and includes what are called ‘mis- 
 demeanors’ as well as treason and felony.” 
 
 The law and the decision cannot be plainer than they are. There 
 has been nothing since to conflict with them in any way, but, on the 
 contrary, every decision of every Court has confirmed them. The 
 right to demand, and the duty to deliver, a fugitive charged with mis- 
 demeanor are conferred and imposed by the Constitution of the United 
 States and cannot be abridged or abrogated by any authority in any 
 state. 
 
 The contrary impression is probably due to the fact, not only that 
 local authorities do not care ordinarily to go to the expense of bring- 
 ing back minor offenders, but also to the fact that Governors dis- 
 courage extradition for petty crimes, in accordance with the resolution 
 adopted at the Conference of Governors on Inter-State Extradition, 
 which was held in New York City in 1887. 
 
 This Conference was called by Governor Hill to consider the 
 general subject of extradition, and to arrive at some general under- 
 standing on account of certain differences in practice and misunder- 
 standings which had developed. It was made up of a. Justice of the 
 Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and the Governors, or their 
 representatives, from nineteen states. After full discussion it drew 
 up a set of rules governing applications for requisitions, which were 
 recommended to all the states and which are still quite closely fol- 
 lowed. They are printed on the back of the application for a requisi- 
 tion in many states. 
 
 Several proposals were made to agree to a rule not to grant 
 requisitions for certain misdemeanors, but it was suggested that it was 
 hardly becoming for the members to make a public declaration that 
 they intended to violate the Constitution. The conclusion arrived at 
 is expressed in the following resolution, which was finally adopted : 
 
 “Resolved, That it is the sense of this' conference that the governors 
 of the demanding states discourage proceedings for the extradition of 
 persons charged with petty offenses ; and that except in special cases, 
 under aggravating circumstances, no demand shall be made in such cases.” 
 
 It will be seen from this that the Conference distinctly refused 
 to make a rule which would hinder any Governor from granting a 
 requisition for a misdemeanor, or for a criminal offense of any degree. 
 The question, in any particular case, depends on public policy, for the 
 
 17 
 
right to demand, and the duty of the Governor on whom the demand 
 is made to grant, are unquestioned.* 
 
 But it is sometimes urged that, although this is true, it is prac- 
 tically impossible, because Governors will not honor requisitions for 
 misdemeanor. The world is full of people who do not like things 
 which they have never tasted, and the people who are most certain 
 that extradition for misdemeanor is impossible are those who have 
 never attempted it. This point was not clear to me when I published 
 a study of the family desertion and non-support laws six years ago, 
 and the alternative of felony was there given, with the suggestion 
 that, if needed to make the way to extradition any plainer or easier, 
 the offense should be made felony. So far as this opinion, which I 
 have ever since done my best to correct, has had any influence in the 
 passage of felony laws, I desire to express my sincere regret for it, 
 because the way to extradition cannot be made any plainer than it 
 has been and is now under any misdemeanor statute. 
 
 For more than six years I have diligently watched for any 
 instance in which any Governor has refused to grant a requisition for 
 a deserter because the offense was misdemeanor instead of felony, or 
 to honor such a requisition when granted, and I have not been able 
 to find a single one. I went to interview Governor Pennypacker, of 
 Pennsylvania, in 1906, about his refusal to honor a demand for a 
 deserter charged with misdemeanor, and found his only objection was 
 that the papers were not regular. I have since discovered that just 
 after the enactment of the Pennsylvania misdemeanor law of 1903 
 he was advised by an opinion of the Attorney General (28 Pa. Co. Cts., 
 379) that requisitions for deserters under the law should be granted, 
 as they have been ever since. 
 
 The following table shows the total requisitions, and the number 
 of requisitions for deserters included in these, in each state from 
 which it was possible to obtain reports for the five years from 1906 
 to 1910, inclusive : 
 
 *The granting of a requisition for a fugitive criminal depends on the executive 
 authority of the governor. The legislature cannot confer or withhold this authority, nor can 
 it or the courts interfere with the executive in the exercise of it; but the obligation which 
 the constitution of a state imposes on the governor to see that the laws of the state are 
 faithfully executed makes it his duty to exercise the power given him to bring back those 
 who transgress these laws, whether the charge is misdemeanor or felony (State vs. Hudson, 
 2 N. P. 1, Ohio, 1893, confirmed by Supr. Court Ohio, 52 O. S. 673, 1895); and the duty to 
 deliver a fugitive implies a corresponding right and duty on the part of the governor of the 
 state from which he fled to demand his surrender (Work vs. Corrington, 34 O. S. 64, 1877). 
 
 While, therefore, a governor has a certain discretion, it seems to be his duty not to 
 refuse, for any insufficient or arbitrary reason, a requisition which has been properly applied 
 for, which he has the right to grant, and which will promote the enforcement of the laws of 
 the state, as requisitions for family deserters, whether the charge is felony or misdemeanor, 
 certainly do. 
 
 18 
 
Extraditions — 1906-1910 
 
 Total Requisitions 
 
 Requisitions for Deserters 
 5 Years Included 
 
 Offense 
 
 Colorado 
 
 135 
 
 3 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 130 
 
 6 
 
 Delaware 
 
 47 
 
 2 
 
 Georgia 
 
 732 
 
 13 
 
 Illinois 
 
 1370 
 
 128 
 
 Indiana 
 
 409 
 
 66 
 
 Iowa 
 
 417 
 
 47 
 
 Kansas 
 
 287 
 
 5 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 431 
 
 1 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 276 
 
 13 
 
 Maryland 
 
 160 
 
 1 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 615 
 
 0 
 
 Montana 
 
 75 
 
 2 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 214 
 
 24 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 711 
 
 120 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 48 
 
 0 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 12 
 
 0 
 
 New York 
 
 666 
 
 122 
 
 No. Carolina 
 
 228 
 
 10 
 
 Ohio 
 
 534 
 
 145 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 728 
 
 68 
 
 Vermont 
 
 46 
 
 0 
 
 Washington 
 
 160 
 
 18 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 205 
 
 43 
 
 Wyoming 
 
 46 
 
 0 
 
 Misdemeanor 
 
 Felony (Other crime in 2 of the 6) 
 
 Misdemeanor 
 
 66 
 
 a 
 
 (Misdemeanor to Feb. 23, ’07 — 1 
 ■\ Felony after Feb. 23, 07 — 65 
 
 | 66 
 f Misdemeanor to Mch. 28, ’07 
 I Felony after Mch. 28, ’07 
 [ (All after Mch. 26, ’08) 
 Misdemeanor 
 
 “ (All since Nov. 13, ’08) 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 Felony 
 
 Misdemeanor 
 
 i 6 
 66 
 
 Felony 
 
 Misdemeanor 
 
 Felony 
 
 Misdemeanor 
 
 66 
 
 \ Misdemeanor to Mch. 1 , ’07 
 ( Felony after Mch. 1 , ’07 
 Felony 
 Misdemeanor 
 
 The state which issued the largest number of requisitions for 
 deserters during the five years 1906 to 1910, inclusive, was Ohio, 
 with 145, and next to this came, not the Empire State, nor any other 
 which had strengthened the popular error by enacting a felony law, 
 but Illinois, with 128, on the charge of misdemeanor. New York 
 was next, with 122, of which sixty-four applications, more than half, 
 were from New York City and seventeen from Buffalo. This is 
 attributed in New York to the enactment of the felony law, but 
 New Jersey, but little more than one-fourth as large and with only a 
 misdemeanor law, issued 120, only two less, in the same time. Fol- 
 lowing this, with a wide interval, was Pennsylvania, with sixty-eight, 
 of which thirty-two were on applications from Philadelphia, fifteen 
 from York, and the remainder from a dozen other countries, but not 
 one from Pittsburgh. 
 
 Next was Indiana, with sixty-six, all but one in three years and 
 ten months under the felony law, and after it Iowa, with forty-seven 
 in the same portion of the time, Wisconsin with forty-three, Nebraska 
 twenty-four and Washington eighteen. In Massachusetts no effort 
 
 19 
 
was made to reach a deserter for some time before the period in ques- 
 tion, nor until about two years and a half ago-. Since then thirteen 
 have been brought back, without any trouble, and there were the same 
 number in Georgia during the five years. 
 
 The Comparative Number of Requisitions 
 
 The following table shows the number of requisitions in each 
 year in the ten states having the largest number for the five years, 
 the initial indicating in each case whether the offense was felony or 
 misdemeanor : 
 
 NUMBER OE REQUISITIONS FOR DESERTERS EACH YEAR 
 
 
 Ohio 
 
 111. 
 
 N. Y. 
 
 N. J. 
 
 Pa. 
 
 Ind. 
 
 la. 
 
 Wis. 
 
 Neb. 
 
 Wash. 
 
 
 F. 
 
 M. 
 
 F. 
 
 M. 
 
 M. 
 
 F. 
 
 F. 
 
 F. 
 
 F. 
 
 F. 
 
 1906 
 
 21 
 
 21 
 
 20 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 
 1907 
 
 18 
 
 22 
 
 30 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 12 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1908 
 
 24 
 
 20 
 
 19 
 
 32 
 
 17 
 
 21 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 1909 
 
 35 
 
 30 
 
 22 
 
 27 
 
 16 
 
 21 
 
 13 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 1910 
 
 47 
 
 35 
 
 31 
 
 40 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 28 
 
 11 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 
 145 
 
 128 
 
 122 
 
 120 
 
 68 
 
 66 
 
 47 
 
 43 
 
 24 
 
 18 
 
 These figures cannot be properly compared without taking into 
 account the size of the states to which they refer and the conditions 
 prevailing in each. It is not possible to determine the total number 
 of deserters from each, but a comparison on the basis of relative 
 population is made in the following table, which gives, with the 
 actual number, the number which this rate for the time after the 
 offense was made felony would make in five years, and the rate per 
 hundred thousand of population. It is worthy of notice that the state 
 in which the largest number of requisitions were issued in proportion 
 to the population is only a misdemeanor state. 
 
 RATIO OE REQUISITIONS FOR DESERTION TO POPULATION 
 Total Req. Would be in Per 100,000 
 
 
 1 )eserters 
 
 Period 
 
 five yrs. 
 
 Pop. 1910 
 
 pop. 
 
 Law 
 
 N. J. 
 
 120 
 
 5 yrs. 
 
 120 
 
 2,537,167 
 
 4.8 
 
 M 
 
 Ind. 
 
 66 
 
 3 yrs. 10 ms.* 
 
 84 
 
 2,700,876 
 
 3.1 
 
 F 
 
 Ohio 
 
 145 
 
 5 yrs. 
 
 1 45 
 
 4,767,121 
 
 3.0 
 
 F 
 
 la. 
 
 47 
 
 3 yrs. 9 ms.* 
 
 63 
 
 2,224,771 
 
 2.9 
 
 F 
 
 Ills. 
 
 128 
 
 5 yrs. 
 
 3 28 
 
 5,638,591 
 
 2.3 
 
 M 
 
 Wash. 
 
 18 
 
 3 yrs. 10 ms.* 
 
 23 
 
 1,141,990 
 
 2.0 
 
 F 
 
 Wise. 
 
 43 
 
 5 yrs. 
 
 43 
 
 2,333,860 
 
 1.9 
 
 F 
 
 Neb. 
 
 21 
 
 5 yrs. 
 
 21 
 
 1,192,214 
 
 1.8 
 
 F 
 
 N. Y. 
 
 122 
 
 5 yrs'. 
 
 122 
 
 9,113,614 
 
 1.3 
 
 F 
 
 Pa. 
 
 68 
 
 5 yrs. 
 
 68 
 
 7,665,111 
 
 .9 
 
 M 
 
 *After 
 
 making the 
 
 offense felony. 
 
 
 
 
 
 These 
 
 facts need no argument. 
 
 Whatever other reasons 
 
 there 
 
 may be for 
 
 enacting felony laws, those who 
 
 seek to pass them for 
 
 20 
 
facilitating extradition are not only wasting their energy, but mis- 
 leading others, and helping to protect deserters. 
 
 The only real trouble is the expense, and that is found under a 
 felony law also, as it is in California to-day, where applications for 
 requisition will not be made by the prosecuting attorney unless some 
 one puts up the money ; in Connecticut, where the state’s attorney 
 » in one city will not extradite anyone because he thinks such a use of 
 
 public funds questionable, and in Maine, where the first application 
 for a deserter under the felony law met with objection on account 
 * of the cost. 
 
 Objections to Felony 
 
 On the other hand, there are good reasons why the offense should 
 not be made felony. The situation is not one which calls for artillery, 
 for there are women and children in the crowd on whom it is pro- 
 posed to fire, but for sharpshooters, who can pick off the offenders 
 without hurting the helpless. 
 
 a. The severity of the law hinders prosecutions. It is reported 
 from Indiana and from Iowa that wives change their minds* and in 
 California the same experience has seriously interfered with the execu- 
 tion of the law. The Humane Society of San Francisco writes that 
 it is annoying to be obliged to charge people with felony, when the 
 offense is not of the state prison order. 
 
 And why should the wives prosecute under such circumstances? 
 Should prosecuting officers, in their zeal to punish, be surprised that 
 the one on whom they depend mainly for the evidence should not be 
 wholly oblivious to the other aspect of the situation ? 
 
 The number of commitments to the state prison or state reforma- 
 tory, in the thirteen states having felony laws, is shown by the fol- 
 lowing table, which gives the date of the law in those states in which 
 it was not in operation for the whole five years, and the average 
 length of the sentence when it could be ascertained. 
 
 COMMITMENTS TO STATE PRISON OR STATE REFORMATORY FOR DESERTION 
 
 OR NON-SUPPORT, 1906-1910. 
 
 Date of 
 Felony 
 Law 
 
 Prior to Beginning 
 of Period 
 
 Mar. 
 
 1 o, 
 
 1909 
 
 Feb. 
 
 25, 
 
 1907 
 
 Mar. 
 
 26, 
 
 1907 
 
 Apr. 
 
 1 , 
 
 1909' 
 
 June 
 
 4, 
 
 1909 
 
 Mar. 
 
 23, 
 
 1907 
 
 Mar. 
 
 1 1 , 
 
 1907 
 
 State: 
 
 Conn. 
 
 Mich. 
 
 N.Y. 
 
 Neb. 
 
 O. 
 
 Wise. 
 
 Cal. 
 
 Ind. 
 
 la. 
 
 Me. 
 
 Mo . 
 
 Utah 
 
 Wash. 
 
 1906 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 15 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1907 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 16 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1908 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 17 
 
 16 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 3 
 
 1909 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 16 
 
 13 
 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1910 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 14 
 
 18 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Total 
 
 none 
 
 33* 
 
 26 
 
 5* 
 
 78 
 
 60 
 
 5 
 
 25 
 
 5 
 
 none 
 
 t 
 
 f 
 
 6 
 
 Average length of sentence 2 yrs. 1 yr. 2 yrs. 1 yr. 
 
 * Years not stated separately, 
 t No report. 
 
 21 
 
No doubt many of these men deserved the punishment they 
 received, and the number is small compared with the number of 
 cases which must have been involved ; but the number in Ohio repre- 
 sents 156 years of confinement, and, though some of these men may 
 have been paroled before the end of the term, such sentences, from 
 the standpoint of the family, seem too hard. The clang of the prison 
 door, as it closed on nearly 100 of these men for two years, may have 
 announced to society that it had done a righteous act in imposing a 
 just punishment, but it brought no joy to the wife, left alone with 
 her children, and she cannot be blamed for faltering instead of assist- 
 ing society to prolong the desertion, and make the non-support com- 
 plete. One is reminded of the pedagogue, who was so indignant at 
 finding two boys fighting that he flogged them both for an example. 
 
 Lack of Power Weakens Procedure 
 
 b. Cases are usually begun before a magistrate, and often do 
 not get further, because the man is released on a bond or promise 
 to support. The disadvantage of the situation is that the lower Court 
 has no power to punish, and can only threaten to bind over for severe 
 treatment, instead of giving the man the alternative of immediate 
 imprisonment with hard labor if he does not at once change his course. 
 In order to overcome this difficulty, in a felony law recently passed 
 in Colorado, the justice is given power to impose imprisonment for 
 three months as one of the conditions of a suspended sentence, which 
 seems so much like a real sentence as to remind one of the man who 
 took a nap before he went to sleep. How much better for the lower 
 Court to have power, as it might under a misdemeanor statute, to 
 render final judgment and impose an adequate sentence, which it 
 could suspend as soon as it had had the desired effect? 
 
 In such a case in Ohio the Juvenile Court can inflict a sentence of 
 a year, with a fine of $500, which must be worked out at sixty cents 
 per day, making nearly three years and a half in all. No Court needs 
 anything more severe than that. 
 
 Conviction Not So £asy 
 
 c. If the case reaches the higher Courts as felony, juries are 
 apt not to convict. There have been, of course, many convictions in 
 Ohio and Wisconsin, but a record of the sixteen cases actually brought 
 to trial in Oakland, Cal., last year shows that in five of them the man 
 was found not guilty — left to go absolutely free. I have not found so 
 large a percentage of acquittals under any misdemeanor law. The 
 probation officer of a city in Iowa writes : 
 
“Our law is too drastic. If the offense were a misdemeanor and 
 could be punished by the magistrate direct, more offending husbands 
 would be sent to jail.” 
 
 A letter written last November from a town in Wisconsin, in 
 which there had been 100 cases of family desertion in the preceding 
 two years, to find out whether there was not some better law than 
 the felony statute under which the state has been working for many 
 years,, said : 
 
 “We have a law which punishes for this crime very severely, a term 
 in the penitentiary, but it seems almost impossible to get a conviction. 
 The wife, of course, knowing the facts, will, as a rule, not testify and the 
 prosecuting officers have grown weary of attempting to convict.” 
 
 Some instances of this kind will occur under any law, but these 
 are the opinions of men who are interested only in getting the best 
 results. The Humane Society of San Francisco further says: “The 
 machinery is too big for the material handled.” 
 
 So said Attorney General Mayer, of New York, six years ago 
 when the District law was under consideration, and this opinion was 
 confirmed by the District Attorney of New York City. Since then 
 an even higher authority has said that the offense ought not to by 
 felony. During the last two years Judge Mayer has had occasion to 
 review the situation as attorney for the Page Commission, for which 
 he drew the report, and, in reply to a question as to whether he still 
 thought family desertion and non-support should be made a misde- 
 meanor and not a felony, he wrote, on May 22, 1911 : 
 
 “I have not changed my view on this subject and, indeed, am more 
 confirmed in it than ever.” 
 
 Possible Changes in New York 
 
 Nothwithstanding the fact that extradition for non-support under 
 the misdemeanor statute in New York has for many years been pos- 
 sible, no efifort was made to bring back deserters from other states 
 under it, and all the extraditions which have taken place have been 
 under the felony statute of 1905, under which cases must be tried in 
 the General Sessions Court. As has been already explained, not more 
 than ten per cent of the complaints made under this charge result in 
 extraditions or trials, but if the extradition could be made under the 
 charge of misdemeanor, the offender, on his return, might be tried 
 in the Domestic Relations Court and punished by imprisonment in 
 the penitentiary up to o,ne year, which seems sufficiently severe, and 
 was equalled in only one case of the eleven men sent to the peni- 
 tentiary by the General Sessions Court out of the twenty-eight who 
 
 23 
 
were sentenced to imprisonment by that Court during the last five 
 years. The average sentence of these eleven men in the Court of 
 General Sessions was seven months and twenty-seven days, so that the 
 Domestic Relations Court would be able to deal as severely with 
 offenders brought back to it, and on account of their experience in 
 dealing with such cases the judges of the Domestic Relations Court 
 should be better qualified to judge as to the wisdom of going to the 
 expense and trouble of extradition in any given case, and would no 
 doubt be able to dispose of a large number of the complaints which 
 now come to the office of the District Attorney. He would still have 
 the same opportunity as now to investigate all which might come to 
 him, and to throw out all those in which he did not find extradition 
 proceedings warranted. 
 
 It seems probable that these modifications of the present laws, 
 which would cause no very great change in the present work of the 
 Domestic Relations Court, would not only lessen the expense by 
 putting the cases into a Court in which the costs are less, but would 
 also get at least as good results, while relieving the crowded General 
 Sessions Court of cases for which it is not specially fitted. 
 
 National Desertion Bureau 
 
 A noteworthy development as to extradition has taken place in 
 connection with the United Hebrew Charities of New York, which did 
 so much in this direction after the passage of the felony law in 1905. 
 Partly as the result of a report on abandonment made by Morris D. 
 Waldman, at the Conference of Jewish Charities in St. Louis in May, 
 1910, they established a bureau in charge of a skillful attorney, who 
 succeeded in locating, in nine months, 174 deserters, or about seventy 
 per cent, out of 249 which were brought to his attention. Encouraged 
 by this success the National Desertion Bureau was formed, on Febru- 
 ary 1, with headquarters in the United Hebrew Charities Building, 
 in New York. With this the members of the Jewish Conference in 
 all parts of the country co-operate. Portraits or minute descriptions 
 of missing men appear each week in the Jewish publication in New 
 York, and are sent to any friends of the deserters who are likely to 
 influence them to return without resorting to the law. This machinery 
 has been very successful, and interesting instances might be related 
 of quick discovery and satisfactory results. Up to May 15 last 135 
 men had been catalogued. 
 
 There is no reason why those in states .where the offense is only 
 a misdemeanor should not participate in this excellent scheme for 
 reaching men who are avoiding their family duties. 
 
 24 
 
Misdemeanor Laws Also in Felony States 
 
 It should be remembered also that Ohio, New York and Indiana, 
 which have felony laws and which stand in the first rank as to their 
 efforts in dealing with this evil, as well as Michigan, also have laws 
 making the offense a misdemeanor or a quasi-crime, and that it is 
 under these laws that all but a small proportion of the prosecutions 
 are carried on. In response to a question put to an attorney in Ohio, 
 who has had more than ten years’ successful experience in handling 
 such cases, as to whether they could secure as good results under a 
 felony law alone, he replied : “We could not handle them at all.” 
 
 The situation as to these states, therefore, recalls the incident of 
 the kind-hearted man who, in building a barn, cut a small hole for 
 the little cat and a large hole for the big cat, to be used in getting* 
 in and out ; and it is certainly not worth while, after the structures 
 of statehood have been erected and the means of communication 
 between them opened, under a misdemeanor charge, for more than 
 a hundrd years in such a way that it can never be closed, to cut an 
 additional hole in order to reach deserters who can now be secured 
 by any state under a misdemeanor charge, without making the offense 
 felony. 
 
 Extradition Not the Most Important Part 
 
 While no law is good which does not permit of extradition, it is 
 much more important that the law should be so framed that it will 
 secure the best results in ordinary non-support cases, and in those 
 in which it is not necessary to go outside the state, than it is to have 
 it effective in reaching men who desert to other states, of which the 
 number is relatively smaller, and who cannot be reached under any 
 charge without considerable trouble and expense. It is unfortunate, 
 therefore, that there should be such a feeling that it is necessary to 
 make the offense felony on this account. 
 
 The extremes met in Pennsylvania at the last session of the 
 legislature when a committee from, the Associated Charities of Pitts- 
 burgh, which has made an. exhaustive study of the subject and con- 
 cluded that a misdemeanor statute was too severe for that state, pre- 
 pared a bill supplementing the act of 1867, which does not make the 
 offense a crime at all, and applies to any husband and father, whether 
 the family he leaves is in destitute circumstances or not. The directors 
 of the poor, meantime, introduced a bill making the offense felony. 
 The supplement to the act of 1867 was vigorously pushed, but failed 
 to command the support of workers in other parts of the state, and 
 neither bill was passed. In reply to a question as to why the felony 
 
 25 
 
bill was introduced, the directors of the poor, who had heard that the 
 felony law worked well in another state, wrote : 
 
 “We have 95 cases where we are compelled to help support the 
 families of deserting husbands, and we have no way to bring them hack 
 to their families. 
 
 “We also have a number of cases where the father has deserted his 
 family and, going to other states, gets work at big wages and should he 
 made to support his' family, but we are powerless to act under the present 
 law.” 
 
 In view of the fact that extradition under the law referred to has 
 been going on steadily since its enactment eight years ago, and nine 
 requisitions were secured by Philadelphia last year, it is hard to tell 
 whether the responsibility for this situation rests most heavily upon 
 the officials, or upon the committee which, with all its investigations, 
 has failed, apparently, to keep in touch with what is going on at 
 home; but the thought of the ninety-five deserters abiding in safety 
 under the felony bogey, some of whom at least might be reached by 
 a little effort, makes one feel like striking it down with a very heavy 
 club. 
 
 Jury Trial Not Necessary in Pennsylvania 
 
 The objection of the committee to a misdemeanor statute in 
 Pennsylvania is that it requires an indictment and jury trial in each 
 case ; but an examination of the statutes shows that desertion and non- 
 support, exactly as we know them now, were covered by the poor 
 law of 1771, which antedated the Constitution, with its requirements 
 as to jury trial; and that the offense belonged to a class of minor 
 crimes, like pocket-picking, thieving, vagrancy and disorderly conduct, 
 which have been, at least since the enactment of a law more than 300 
 years ago in the time of James I, subject to summary jurisdiction by 
 a magistrate, without a jury trial. There is no reason why a man 
 charged with non-support or desertion in Pennsylvania should be 
 tried by a jury now, so far as the constitutional provisions are con- 
 cerned, even though the legislature sees fit to call the offense by a 
 different name and make the punishment somewhat more severe, 
 because it was not entitled to a jury trial when the Constitution was 
 adopted. Such changes the legislature has a right to make; and if a 
 provision were added granting a jury trial, if demanded, it would no 
 doubt be possible to try almost all the cases without a jury, as under 
 the present law, and as in other states, and also to go after such 
 deserters in other states as those above referred to. 
 
 26 
 
Other Important Points 
 
 Further points which seem clear are: 
 
 1. The case when brought should be heard in a Court specially 
 devoted to the subject of family relations, rather than to other crimes 
 or property interests, whenever it is possible by any adjustment of 
 k the judicial machinery to arrange for this. 
 
 The Domestic Relations' Courts of Buffalo, New York and 
 Chicago above referred to, which are a development of the last 
 j eighteen months, are the outgrowth of an increasing appreciation of 
 
 the fundamental importance of intelligent and consistent treatment of 
 the economic and moral conditions of family life by a judge who can 
 consider all the facts in their relations to each other, and by a deliber- 
 ate course, while in intimate contact with them, can secure results 
 which are not possible with a judge who gets but one view of a com- 
 plicated group of facts, and is obliged to decide offhand just what 
 shall be done, without the opportunity to discover how far the diffi- 
 culties would yield, or perhaps disappear altogether, under proper 
 treatment. The most skillful physician is apt to make mistakes if 
 limited to a single consultation, and, in any event, cannot prescribe 
 infallibly a course of treatment which later developments, if he were 
 able to observe them, might prove to be wrong even in his judgment. 
 
 If the volume of work connected with this subject is not sufficient 
 to occupy the whole time of a Court, it should be arranged that all 
 non-support and desertion cases shall be heard by the same Court, 
 and, if possible, at stated times in separate sessions, as was arranged 
 by Judge Nash, of Buffalo, in March, 1909, letting the Court occupy 
 the remainder of the time with whatever work seems advisable. Such 
 an arrangement must necessarily be made in all except the larger 
 cities, and the best association in such a combination of duties seems to 
 be to let the judge who holds the Juvenile Court preside also over 
 the Domestic Relations Court. The possibility of this will depend 
 upon local conditions, involving the present constitution of the Juvenile 
 Court and the other duties with which the judge who now holds the 
 Juvenile Court is charged. The duties in each are similar in that they 
 involve the most sacred relations of life, the happiness of the entire 
 family, and the future welfare, both moral and material, of the 
 children, as well as the economic interests of the community. They 
 are, therefore, to be classed as relating to persons and distinguished 
 from those relating to property, with which the attention of our 
 Courts has been, until recently, almost wholly engrossed. The value 
 of any object or any interest is so commonly measured by what it is 
 worth in dollars and cents that it has been quite natural for judges, as 
 
 27 
 
well as other people, to be impressed by the claims of property and to 
 give them preference accordingly, because the standard of value can 
 be readily applied and is quickly, and often unconsciously, used. 
 
 We have begun to see the less obvious value of that which is, 
 being destroyed by conditions which it is possible to prevent or to 
 remedy, and to be impressed by the cost to society, of which each of 
 , us is a part, of not giving proper attention to such subjects. A Juvenile 
 Court judge, who magnifies his office, declared recently that his Court 
 was more important than the Supreme Court in the same city, because, 
 while it dealt for the most part with property only, he was dealing 
 with human lives. 
 
 Moreover, judges also, as well as people, are apt to have their 
 feelings strongly aroused when great crimes are committed. They 
 become interested in following the prosecutions connected with them 
 to such an extent that if family difficulties are presented in the midst 
 of them they seem to be of such minor importance, relatively, that they 
 are apt not to receive proper consideration. The mingling of these 
 abnormal personal problems with the perplexities of ordinary family 
 life is, therefore, objectionable in the same way as the contact with 
 cases involving property; and the attention to the question of non- 
 support and desertion is best associated with that demanded by the 
 children, who represent the other part of the family. 
 
 Judges Devoted to the Work 
 
 2. Whatever the arrangement about the work of the Court may 
 be, good results cannot be obtained if the judges are changed from 
 time to time. It is necessary, not only that the judge hear the same 
 class of cases, but that he hear the case relating to the same people 
 when it is continued, or for any reason the parties, or either of them, 
 again appear in Court, in order that he may be entirely familiar with 
 all the circumstances and reach his conclusions in the light of them. 
 
 The work of such a Court can best be done by a judge who 1 
 realizes fully the importance of the problems with which he is dealing, 
 and by a kind of natural selection such men are likely to be chosen 
 for such places. The experience which follows, and the opportunities 
 which arise for making a deep impression upon the lives of many 
 families in restoring the normal relations which are the foundation of 
 society, tend to increase the interest which such a judge finds in his . 
 duties, and to make him still better able to handle in a broad and 
 effective way the many-sided cases which daily come before him. 
 
 It is evident that such a Court, being specially fitted to decide 
 them correctly and carefully, should have jurisdiction of all cases 
 
 28 
 
of non-support and desertion; it is also necessary that this jurisdiction 
 should be complete, so that the Court may be able to follow the right 
 course instead of having to divide the responsibility, or instead of 
 being obliged after a certain point to pass the cases on to a higher 
 Court, which is certain to be less familiar with them and in which 
 totally different views may be taken. 
 
 Hard Labor Absolutely Essential 
 
 3. The punishment should always be with hard labor — the 
 
 * harder the better. No non-support law can be effective without this 
 
 stimulus to the delinquent husband ; and it should be certain, not 
 optional with the judge. We know it is needed, and it should be 
 the invariable accompaniment of the sentence. 
 
 In many cases there are no provisions for work in jails, but 
 there are miles and miles of public streets and roads in every city 
 and county which need to be cleaned and kept in order, and deserters 
 are not such criminals as to require a very strong guard to prevent 
 escape. As to the objection that work in public exposes a man to the 
 disgrace of being stared at, no man can be put to work on the streets 
 in the execution of such a sentence who is not able to escape the 
 punishment if he tries, and under a proper administration of the law 
 he can have the sentence suspended at any time when he is willing to 
 perform his duties. There need be no hesitation, therefore, in making 
 him work in a public place if he can be most useful there, and so far 
 as exposure to public gaze is concerned, if it shortens the time it 
 takes to accomplish the result required, it will be an advantage. 
 
 Compensation to Family Also Important 
 
 4. There should be some reasonable compensation for this labor, 
 which should be certain. Oregon had a provision in its non-support 
 law of 1907 that men might be compelled to work on the public roads, 
 and that the County Court in its discretion might pay to the family 
 not to exceed $1.50 per day, but I cannot find that anything was ever 
 paid. Indiana and Maryland each enacted a law in 1907 providing 
 that the excess earnings of men confined in the workhouse for non- 
 support might be paid to the family, but not a dollar has ever been 
 paid in either state, and the wives and children seem to be in the 
 position of the hungry boy who asked for the core of the apple which 
 his companion was devouring, and was told that there “wasn’t going 
 to be any core.” Colorado also passed a law in 1907 for making jail 
 prisoners work eight hours a day, “when possible,” and in that case 
 paying the families of men confined for non-support from fifty cents 
 
 29 
 
to $1.00 per day; but nothing has been paid under this. One explana- 
 tion is that usually the jailer has a contract for feeding the men at 
 so much per day, and does not want to do anything to diminish the 
 popularity of his resort, or increase the amount of food consumed 
 on his contract. A law just passed provides for many things buH; 
 omits this. Such laws are of no value, and show that the provision 
 should not be permissive and variable, but mandatory as to a fixed 
 rate of compensation. 
 
 In Maine, too, the provision in the law of 1907 for paying fifty 
 cents per day, which was stricken out in 1909, though not much seems 
 to have been done under it, has been restored this year. 
 
 In Michigan the law of 1907 as to such payments has had more 
 effect, and the state prison had paid up to this year to families of 
 eighteen men, $3,251.65. No payments prior to 1910 were made in 
 the Detroit House of Correction, but in that year seven families got 
 $785.22. The city of Detroit has begun, since July 1, 1910, to appro- 
 priate $5,000 annually for the Poor Commission of the city to pay 
 not to exceed $1.00 per day to the dependent family of a man confined 
 there for any offense, which the large surplus earned well enables 
 them to do. 
 
 In the District of Columbia the provision in the law of March 
 23, 1906, for paying fifty cents per day is positive, and this feature 
 of it has proved to be of the greatest assistance in administering 
 the law. Ohio has had the same experience in regard to the state law 
 passed two years later, in 1908, granting forty cents per day to the 
 families of non-supporters sent to the workhouse, the net amount of 
 the Toledo workhouse law, which was in operation for several years 
 prior to 1905. 
 
 The advantage of such a provision is that it permits the judge 
 to punish the man without also punishing the family. The average 
 weekly order in the District is approximately $5, so that while the 
 man is in the workhouse the family gets sixty per cent of this. The 
 effect on the men is salutary, and although the sentence is usually 
 for six months or a year, the average length of confinement, until 
 the men are willing to come out and support their families in accord- 
 ance with the judge’s orders, was only forty-four days in 1909 and 
 sixty days in 1910. In Judge Addams’s Court, in Cleveland, the aver- 
 age time was seventy-eight days in 1909 and ninety-eight days in 1910. 
 As a machine for relieving the state of the expense of supporting 
 either the man or his family this arrangement more than pays for 
 itself, and the idea that the money paid for the labor is a burden to 
 the state or county is a decided mistake. 
 
 30 
 
California has just passed a law for working - such prisoners on 
 the public roads and paying the family not exceeding $1.50 per day; 
 Massachusetts has passed a law which contemplates the payment of 
 fifty cents per day, New Jersey has enacted a similar law as to two 
 institutions and Utah is said to have made some provision for such 
 payments. Much good is to be hoped for from these laws, but they 
 need, for the best results, the spirit of the supervisor at Roanoke, V a., 
 where, under the state law, men under sentence are compelled to work 
 in the chain gang, and he, although not obliged to, gives the families 
 from $2.00 to $2.50 per week when they do this. The example may 
 be commended to officials in larger cities in other states who do not 
 seem to have done all they could under some of the laws above 
 referred to. 
 
 Results of Compensation in Washington 
 
 To encourage this movement the results for four years in the 
 District of Columbia, which show that the amount paid for the earn- 
 ings of prisoners, partly on account of the small appropriation for the 
 first two years, was less than five per cent of the total amount which 
 they so largely assisted the Court in collecting from men under 
 sentence, are given here : 
 
 Fiscal year 
 Ended 
 
 June 30 
 
 Appr. Made for 
 Payment of 
 Earnings 
 
 Paid for Earnings 
 of Men Under 
 Sentence 
 
 Col. from Men 
 Under Suspended 
 Sentence 
 
 Totals 
 
 1907 
 
 $200.00 
 
 $200.00 
 
 $6,050.59 
 
 $6,250.59 
 
 1908 
 
 200.00 
 
 190.50 
 
 21,888.56 
 
 22,079.06 
 
 1909 
 
 2,400.00 
 
 2,340.00 
 
 38,319,65 
 
 40,659.65 
 
 1910 
 
 2,000.00 
 
 1,692.50 
 
 34,077.88 
 
 QC 
 
 77 
 
 Total, 
 
 $4,800.00 
 
 $4,423.00 
 
 $100,336.68 
 
 $104,759.68 
 
 The appropriation for the next fiscal year has been increased to 
 $3,500 and the collections so far for this year have been at the rate 
 of about $36,000. 
 
 Probation Officers Needed 
 
 5. The Court in which cases are tried should have an adequate 
 force of probation officers, in order to be able to investigate the cases 
 carefully before the Court renders its decision, and also to follow up 
 the men released on orders to support and see that payments are 
 regularly made. The complicated nature of the offense renders this 
 preliminary work by a skillful probation officer very important, and 
 with it the judge can rule far more intelligently than if he has tcj 
 
 31 
 
balance the conflicting statements of a man and woman whose feel- 
 ings are aroused by domestic differences. In Judge Addams’s Court, 
 in Cleveland, under skillful treatment, many cases are settled without 
 coming before the Court at all, and when they are brought the Judge 
 has a full statement of the circumstances by the probation officer as 
 a guide to aid him in developing the evidence. If, when released on 
 probation, the man fails to pay regularly a notice is promptly sent 
 and the probation officer follows it up. 
 
 This is in striking contrast with the situation which has prevailed 
 in New Jersey, in which it was necessary for the wife to first convince 
 the overseer of the poor that it was worth while to make the com- 
 plaint, next to appear against her husband in Court, and after that 
 to follow up the collections in case he failed to pay as ordered. As the 
 superintendent of one of the leading charitable associations of tihe 
 state says : 
 
 “No better system could be devised for disturbing the family relation- 
 ship and making family trouble.” 
 
 In another city in Ohio, where a competent and interested agent 
 acts as probation officer, investigating the cases carefully, not one 
 out of the 95 brought in 1909 and 115 in 1910, or 210 in all, was* 
 dismissed, each man being either imprisoned or released on an order 
 to support. 
 
 One great element, an element which has ministered largely to 
 the success of the Domestic Relations Court in Buffalo, is the thorough 
 supervision exercised by the probation officers ; and the same testi- 
 mony comes from New Albany, Indiana, and numerous other cities 
 of intermediate size. 
 
 In the District of Columbia the lack of probation officers for 
 adults in the Juvenile Court is supplied through the effective co-opera- 
 tion of the police, by whom the collections are made and who observe 
 the men as they pay over the money. This system works very suc- 
 cessfully, but as a rule it is quite essential that the probation force 
 should be ample and that it should be wholly under the direction of 
 the Court, ready for investigation or supervision. r 
 
 Systematic Collection 
 
 6. In order to secure the best results there should be a sys- 
 tematic method of making collections. This can best be done by 
 keeping a record of the orders, and the dates when payments are due, 
 in the Court, just as maturing obligations are watched in- a bank, and 
 by promptly following up any delinquent through the probation 
 
 32 
 
officers. Men who will pay a small sum each week if watched will be 
 less likely to pay if the sums are allowed to accumulate. One order 
 recently looked up in Pennsylvania, which was made in 1907 and on 
 which the man had paid nothing since, showed that he owed on it 
 over $600 — more than he could earn in a year. 
 
 Situations like this are apt to arise where no attention is paid 
 to the matter by the Court unless the wife complains ; and it is quite 
 important that the Court should know whether its orders are being 
 obeyed or not, in order to know whether the occasion for them still 
 exists or not. 
 
 In some places it is customary to order the payment to be made 
 directly to the wife, and this would be the best way if only the 
 Court knew that the payments were being made, because it brings 
 in no outside influence between husband and wife. In Columbus, 
 however. Judge Black found that this led to uncertainty and jangling, 
 and therefore changed the system so as to have all money paid through 
 the Court. 
 
 It has been objected to the system in Washington that it inter- 
 feres with the normal family life to have a blue-coated officer act as 
 intermediary between the man who earns the money and the wife 
 who disburses it for the family. The criticism deserves careful con- 
 sideration, but in the choice between the two evils of official contact 
 with the family and of allowing the Court’s orders to be disobeyed 
 from lack of supervision, it is well to err on the side of eniorcing 
 the Court's decrees, with the expectation that as soon as the necessity 
 ceases the Court will relieve itself of the burden of supervision. 
 
 Order to Support as Long as Necessary 
 
 7. The law should provide that the order to support shall con- 
 tinue so long as the Court thinks it necessary. This is the case now 
 in Nebraska, in Iowa, and in some other states. When the District 
 law was enacted there was doubt as to whether it would be possible 
 to secure its passage if the time of the order was made too long, 
 and it was accordingly fixed at one year, to which it was necessary to 
 limit the length of the sentence in order to give the Police Court or 
 Juvenile Court jurisdiction. Experience has shown that many cases 
 are not settled within the year, and in order to continue the payments 
 which men are willing to make it is necessary for them to be again 
 brought into Court, which occasions perplexity and annoyance. Under 
 the Pennsylvania law of 1867, as has been stated, collections can run 
 on indefinitely, and no injustice has developed. It is safe to leave the 
 question of dismissing the case from further consideration to the 
 
 33 
 
Court ; and by extending the time in this way it is possible, without 
 increasing the severity of the sentence, to have in reserve imprison- 
 ment for a year, or the unexpired portion of it, with hard labor, as a 
 stimulus to good conduct and regular payments. 
 
 Any Person May Make the Complaint 
 
 8. Any person may make the complaint when an offense against 
 the public has been committed. The agent of any organization inter- 
 
 i 
 
 ested in such cases already has this right, therefore, and the only 
 question is as to how or when it shall be exercised. In many cases 
 it is better that the case should be begun by some one other than the 
 wife. Usually she is the proper person to do this, but when she is 
 deterred by fear, or there is a probability that the chance of recon- 
 ciliation will be less if she acts, some one else, with a knowledge of 
 the facts, some good probation officer who has-been looking after 
 the children, some agent of a Humane Society who has discovered 
 conditions in the family which demand attention, may do so. It is 
 proper to respect the family relations when they are normal, but 
 often they are not. 
 
 Illegitimate Children 
 
 9. As to including illegitimate children in the law, fifty-four 
 replies .out of sixty-one to the question think they should be included, 
 though of these seven say they have had no experience, and only seven 
 say that the present law is adequate, or express any doubt about includ- 
 ing them. In Ohio and Nebraska, where they have been for some 
 time included in the non-support laws, those who have the responsi- 
 bility for looking after non-support cases say emphatically that they 
 should be included, and that none of the injustice or blackmail feared 
 has been known; and the sentiment in Wisconsin, where they have 
 been included for six years, supports this. In many cases present laws 
 embrace only a civil proceeding, with adequate support for a limited 
 number of years, and in some states there are no laws. The question 
 of including them, therefore, depends on local conditions, but it is 
 important that in one way or other support for them be ensured. 
 
 Certainty an Important Element 
 
 10. The entire proceeding should be certain in its operation, so 
 that the wife who complains and the man who is complained of will 
 know what to expect. If the wife feels that little interest will be 
 
 34 
 
taken in the case, or that if she presses her complaint a punishment 
 unduly severe, depriving her absolutely of support for a long period, 
 may be the result, she will suffer long before instituting proceedings, 
 or perhaps fail to support them when begun. If the man hopes that, 
 for lack of investigation, his plausible excuse will be accepted or that, 
 if it is not, nothing worse can happen than a period of idleness in a 
 jail from which the supplications of his pliant wife will bring him 
 /elease, he is encouraged to continue his shiftless course. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the Court has power to promptly hear and 
 promptly determine the. cases, after securing full information as to 
 the facts through a competent probation officer, and to impose 
 imprisonment for a year with labor that is actually hard, to which 
 may be added a fine up to $500 which the man may be compelled to 
 work out, if the Court orders, at the rate of not more than one- dollar 
 per day, the non-supporting husband is confronted by a prospect 
 which is not inviting. If it is also known, from the experience in such 
 cases as have come before the Court, that, if deserved, such a punish- 
 ment will be inflicted, the expectation of possible leniency will be 
 removed. If, at the same time, there is a provision by which the 
 family will receive fifty cents per day so long as the man performs 
 in confinement the enforced hard labor, the wife can be depended upon 
 to support the judge in his desire to inflict such punishment as the 
 offense deserves ; and if she and the man both know that as soon as he 
 is ready to resume the discharge of his proper obligations to his family 
 the judge will release him in order that he may do so, it is apparent 
 that w r e have a complete piece of legal machinery which the judge 
 can regulate so that he knows it will produce the results which he 
 desires, and which is economical because there is nothing to interfere 
 with the operation, which can be stopped as soon as it is no longer 
 needed. 
 
 A Uniform Law 
 
 It is, perhaps, not essential that there be uniformity in non- 
 support and desertion laws, but the selection of the best tends to uni- 
 formity, and if the selection had been intelligently made in laws 
 enacted in the last six years some mishaps would have been avoided. 
 
 The Commission on Uniform State Laws, after several years 
 study and deliberation, adopted a uniform law at its meeting in August 
 last, which has already been passed by Kansas, Massachusetts, and 
 perhaps other states, and was introduced in Pennsylvania, Rhode 
 Island and some others. On the principle that its work should not 
 be too radical, and should take the line of least resistance, the Com- 
 
 35 
 
mission left the grade of the crime and the matter of hard labor unde- 
 cided, expecting the states to settle those points as they saw fit. A 
 modified form, which clears up these points as indicated in the fore- 
 going discussion, and makes several minor changes which further 
 study has suggested, but which in other respects follows the language 
 of the Uniform Law, is here submitted as follows : 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 Relating to Desertion or Non-Support of Wife or Children, and 
 providing punishment therefor; and to promote Uniformity between 
 the States in reference thereto. 
 
 Section 1. Be it enacted by, etc.: That any husband who shall, 
 without just cause, desert or wilfully neglect or refuse to provide for 
 the support and maintenance of his wife in destitute or necessitous 
 circumstances ; or any parent who shall, without lawful excuse, desert 
 or wilfully neglect or refuse to provide for the support and mainte- 
 nance of his or her (legitimate or illegitimate) child or children under 
 the age of sixteen years in destitute or necessitous circumstances, shall 
 be guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction thereof, shall be pun- 
 ished by a fine of not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprison- 
 ment in the 
 
 (1) with hard labor for not exceeding one year, (2) or both; and 
 should a fine be imposed it may be directed by the Court to be paid 
 in whole or in part to the wife or to the guardian, curator, custodian 
 or trustee of the said minor child or children. 
 
 Section 2. Proceedings under this Act may be instituted upon 
 complaint made under oath or affirmation by the wife or child or 
 children, or by any other person, against any person accused of either 
 of the above-named offenses. Juvenile Courts shall have original and 
 concurrent jurisdiction in all cases arising under this Act. Justices 
 
 of the peace, police, city and Courts 
 
 may try any case arising under this Act, and if, in the opinion of such 
 justice or Court, no greater punishment ought to be imposed, may 
 render judgment therein, in the case of justices of the peace for 
 
 (1) The place of imprisonment will be governed by the local laws. 
 
 (2) While there may be no objection to making the term of imprisonment two years, 
 as in the Uniform Law, in states where this docs not make the offense felony, and for this 
 reason or some other deprive the lower courts of jurisdiction in the case, experience shows 
 that the power to imprison for one year with hard labor, especially if the possible fine must 
 be worked out in addition, is ample, and the Modified Form has been worded accordingly. 
 
 36 
 
imprisonment not exceeding 
 
 and in the case of 
 
 for imprisonment not exceeding 
 
 subject to the right of the accused to appeal as provided by law in 
 other cases. (3) 
 
 Section 3. At any time before the trial, upon petition of the 
 > complainant and upon notice to the defendant, the Court, or a judge 
 
 thereof in vacation, may enter such temporary order as may seem 
 just, providing for the support of the deserted wife or children, or 
 * both, pendente lite, and may punish for violation of such order as 
 
 for contempt. 
 
 Section 4. Before the trial, with the consent of the defendant, 
 or at the trial, on entry of a plea of guilty, or after conviction, instead 
 of imposing the penalty hereinbefore provided, or in addition thereto, 
 the Court in its discretion, having regard to the circumstances, and to 
 the financial ability or earning capacity of the defendant, shall have 
 the power to make an order, which shall be subject to change by the 
 Court from time to time, as circumstances may require, directing the 
 defendant to pay a certain sum periodically to the wife, or to the 
 guardian, curator or custodian of the said minor child or children, 
 or to an organization or individual approved by the Court as trustee, 
 and to release the defendant from custody on probation, upon his or 
 her entering into a recognizance, with or without surety, in such sum 
 as the Court or a judge thereof in vacation may order and approve. 
 The condition of the recognizance shall be such that if the defendant 
 shall make his or her personal appearance in Court whenever ordered 
 to do so, and shall further comply with the terms of such order of 
 support, or of any subsequent modification thereof, then such recog- 
 nizance shall be void, otherwise in full force and effect. 
 
 Section 5. If the Court be satisfied by information and due 
 proof under oath that the defendant has violated the terms of such 
 order, it may forthwith proceed with the trial of the defendant under 
 . the original charge, or sentence him or her under the original convic- 
 
 tion, or enforce the suspended sentence, as the case may be. In case 
 
 (•1) It is quite important that delay and additional expense be avoided by having the 
 lowest courts empowered to pass sentence and enforce the law in non-support and desertion 
 cases. In some states these lower courts do not have jurisdiction of crimes involving im- 
 prisonment for a year, and without such authority could only bind over to a higher court 
 instead of trying the case. Such a provision as this is therefore necessary in such states, 
 and it should be worded in accordance with existing laws in each state as to the jurisdiction 
 of the lower courts. The lower court can always bind over in cases involving a heavier 
 punishment than it is able to inflict. The Connecticut Act of July 6, 1905, is an example 
 of this. 
 
 37 
 
of forfeiture of a recognizance, and enforcement thereof by execution, 
 the sum recovered may, in the discretion of the Court, be paid in 
 whole or in part to the wife, or to the guardian, curator, custodian or 
 trustee of the said minor child or children. 
 
 Section 6. No other or greater evidence shall be required to 
 prove the marriage of such husband and wife, or that the defendant 
 is the father or mother of such child or children, than is or shall be 
 required to prove such facts in a civil action. In no prosecution under 
 this Act shall any existing statute or rule of law prohibiting the dis- 
 closure of confidential communications between husband and wife 
 apply, and both husband and wife shall be competent and compellable 
 (4) witnesses to testify against each other to any and all relevant 
 matters, including the fact of such marriage and the parentage of 
 such child or children. Proof of the desertion of such wife, child or 
 children in destitute or necessitous circumstances or of neglect or 
 refusal to provide for the support and maintenance of such wife, 
 child or children shall be prima facie evidence that such desertion, 
 neglect or refusal is wilful. 
 
 Section 7. An offense under this act shall be held to have been 
 committed in any county in which such wife, child or children may be 
 at the time such complaint is made. (5) It shall be the duty of the 
 county commissioners, in any case in which application is properly 
 made by the officers responsible for the execution of the law, to pro- 
 vide the funds necessary for extraditing any person charged with an 
 offense under this act who has gone to another state. (6) 
 
 Section 8. It shall be the duty of the sheriff, warden or other 
 
 official in charge of the . (1), 
 
 in which any person is confined on account of a sentence under this 
 act, to pay over to the wife, or to the guardian, curator or custodian 
 of his or her minor child or children, or to an organization or indi- 
 vidual approved by the Court as trustee, at the end of each week, for 
 the support of such wife, child or children, a sum equal to fifty cents 
 (7) for each day's hard labor performed by said person so confined. 
 
 (4) It is of the greatest importance that the wife should be a compellable witness 
 and the Uniform Law is delective in not protecting this point. 
 
 (5) This provision is taken from the Ohio law, where it was added to remove any 
 doubt as to the right to brii g the suit in the place where the desertion had occurred, and 
 has been found to be quite desirable. It does not seem to have resulted in any injustice 
 or hardship to those atcused, but there the law relates to children only. 
 
 (6) This not only recognizes the right of extradition for the offense, but removes 
 the obstacle to its enforcement which sometimes results from a conflict of responsibility, 
 and a failure on the part of those who control the funds to realize that as a rule it is a 
 financial advantage to bring back deserters. 
 
 (7) This amount b ’ een inserted in the belief that it is as nearly right as possible. 
 The charge against the in. titution should not be too high, and this is a fair percentage of 
 the average order made by the court under suspended sentence. 
 
 38 
 
Section 9. This Act shall be so interpreted and construed as 
 to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those 
 states which enact it. 
 
 Section 10. Repealing clause. 
 
 Section 11. This act shall take effect the day 
 
 of Anno Domini 19 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 It is important that we take a reasonable view of this subject, 
 and that we do not let the impulse to punish make us forget the true 
 purpose of the law, which is to overcome the evil. This can best 
 be done by making the offense misdemeanor, with an adequate pun- 
 ishment by hard labor and a reasonable but certain compensation 
 for the family, so that all non-support cases, whether accompanied by 
 desertion or not, can be tried in one of the lower Courts, which shall 
 have full jurisdiction in working promptly, patiently and steadily for 
 the best results to the family, and to the community. 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Tune 9, 1911. 
 

 A 
 
N