I take the greatest pain to endeavor to persuade them to do so. The register is on the table here during the meetings of the Association, and it is at our reception-room in the Grand Union Hotel at other times. The newly elected members are particularly requested to register. All, indeed, ought to do so for the various uses which flow from that registry. We desire to know where gentlemen are and if they are in the city, and there are other matters to which I desire to give answer if I have the opportunity. I, therefore, again say that it is very desirable that gentlemen should all register. I hope that no one will neglect it. Gentlemen are particularly requested to use the receptionroom at the Grand Union Hotel for the purpose of becoming acquainted with each other, and indulging in such conversation as pleases them. That is one of the uses of the Association. That is the end of my report, Mr. President. The President: The next business in order is a paper to be read by Henry Jackson, of Georgia, on "Indemnity the Essence of Insurance; Evil Consequences of Legislation Qualifying this Principle." I introduce to the Association Mr. Jackson, who will now present this paper. Mr. Jackson then read his paper. (See Appendix.) George G. Wright, of Iowa: The General Council had a meeting at half past seven o'clock and agreed upon a number of recommendations for membership in the Association. The list had not been prepared at the time of assembling this evening, and, therefore, could not be announced then. It is now prepared and the Secretary will be good enough to read the list agreed upon by the General Council of the names we recommend for membership. The Secretary: Mr. President, we have the pleasure of presenting fortyone new members. The list was read and all were elected. (See List of Members elected at the end of the Minutes.) The President : There being no discussion as to the paper read by Mr. Jackson, the next business in order is the discussion on the report made in 1886 by the Committee on Judicial Administration, as to indeterminate sentences for convicted criminals. I would request gentlemen at this point when they address the Chair to please state their names and the State from which they come so as to avoid confusion. Robert D. Benedict, of New York: The resolution, Mr. President, which was offered last year by the Committee and was laid over for action until this present meeting is brief, and I will read it : "Resolved, That in the judgment of this Association the system of liberating convicts on parole requires better safeguards than those which are provided by the legislation in the States of New York and Ohio on that subject, so as to secure the retention of paroled prisoners more effectually within the supervision and control of the prison authorities, and keeping them strictly within the limits of their respective States. The dispersion of criminals by the authorities of a State in other States or countries should never be permitted." This appears on page 318 of the proceedings of last year. I desire to state in relation to this matter that, as was seen by the address of the President this morning, two other States have passed laws in relation to this matter during the past year. The provisions of those laws, however, have not been brought to the attention of the Committee, and we were not able to make any change in our recommendation by reason of that legislation. Our report, as you see, refers simply to the legislation of New York and Ohio. I understand from my colleague, Mr. King, of Ohio, that some ob jection was urged on behalf of the authorities of Ohio to what was said in our report in relation to the situation of things there as not being as well guarded even as it is in the State of New York. The law in relation to both States on that point was substantially the same-namely, that this paroling of prisoners was to be such as to keep them within the control of the prison authorities, and that it was to be done under rules and regulations adopted by the prison authorities. And it would seem that the rules and regulations which were adopted by the State of Ohio did cover this very point which we pointed to in our resolution—namely, the dispersion of criminals from one State into other States, for the parole which was given in the State of Ohio always contained in it the clause that the criminal was not to go beyond the limits of the State, and, of course, if he did go, it was an escape from justice, and he might be pursued and restored by the ordinary method of judicial procedure. But, as the members of the Association will see, that, after all, was a matter of regulation and not a matter of law. Our recommendation is that it should be made more closely a matter of law, because under the same wording of the statute in the two States, in Ohio by a regulation they confine their parole prisoners within the limits of the State, and in New York they do not. And the fact remains, as was stated in our report, that out of the one thousand two hundred and fifty prisoners who have been paroled in the State of New York two hundred and fiftyfour have been dispersed among other States and countries than the State of New York. The Committee still adhere to the expression of their opinion that it is a thing that ought to be guarded against, and ought to be guarded against by law, and on that account I move the adoption of the resolution of the Committee. The President: The resolution is open for debate, gentlemen. Augustus O. Bacon, of Georgia: I am not prepared to debate this question, nor am I prepared to give a satisfactory vote upon it. It is a subject, I presume, which has met with investigation at the hands of the Committee satisfactory to themselves, and the only object I have in rising is this: It appears to me to be a matter very largely of local interest, and I do not think it has been a custom of this Association to make recommendations to particular States as to statutes which they should pass. We are here representing thirty-eight States, and we are supposed to deal only with subjects of general interest and of general application to those things which concern the administration of the law in our various States. Now, if forced to vote upon this subject, I will be compelled to vote in the negative, simply because that is the safe course when one is not furnished with sufficient information to enable him to vote with the affirmative; and the only object I have in addressing the Chair is to call the attention of the Association to this feature of the case. If it is a matter of local interest, it does not appear to me to be a proper subject for action by this Association. There is but one feature, so far as I was able to gather from the remark of the gentleman who offered the resolution, which has any interest outside of the particular State in which the registration was recommended, and that is the feature alluded to of the fact of the dispersion of some of these criminals outside of the State in which this legislation is desired. If the matter of prison regulation is to be gone into at all it strikes me that this is an extremely limited view to take of the matter. The matter of prison regulation is a very vast subject. It is one in which there can be, undoubtedly, very great reform, very great improvements—one which, doubtless, needs very great reforms and improvements. But, sir, it does not appear to me to be the proper province of this Association to single out one isolated feature of prison regulation which, so far as we have any infor mation, is limited to two or three States; and for us, a high representative body (at least we so appear to this nation), upon this slight information, to be giving our solemn judgment and our solemın advice to the State of New York as to what she should do,-for one, Mr. President, I am not prepared to do it. I repeat, I do not rise for the purposes of discussing the merits of the resolution, because I have not the information which would enable me properly so to do. I cannot give any information to this Association. But it does occur to me that we are overstepping the bounds if we endeavor to utter our solemn conviction upon a subject upon which we have not had the proper light; and I think, further, that we will be, to a certain extent, depreciating the high functions which we should perform when we assume to go into the various States and examine into their specific legislation, and, upon the slightest of information, assume to give them advice as to what particular legislation may be needed in their case. Now, sir, while I am not prepared to say but what it may be a proper resolution, I must still vote in the negative. Rufus King, of Ohio: I should be very sorry, indeed, if the gentleman should vote under a misapprehension. The resolution does not propose to give advice to the State of New York at all. It is a general subject referred to this Committee two years ago, and which is now becoming very important to all the States, as will appear by the fact stated by Mr. Benedict just now, that since this report was filed two States have adopted this system, and before the next session half a dozen other States will have adopted the same course. What are called indeterminate sentences have been adopted in only two of our States, and the meaning of them is this: That the judges, instead of fixing the limit of punishment, can make the sentence general. The convict is sentenced to the penitentiary without a time being fixed, the object being to give the prison authorities the power to fix his length of stay in the prison. The parole system is supplementary. We all see how that system works in New York, where criminals under parole constantly dispersed into other States. Now, what the Committee complain of in this resolution is, that as New York has been made the dumping ground for criminals from Europe, she in turn has been dumping her |