in Richmond, a man who was known for his honesty, and who had worked there for years, was considered absolutely trustworthy.

In one case he found a large sum of money lying in the cashiers' cages, and he had returned it to the officers of the bank. On this particular occasion he found another large sum of money, bank notes, and this time the temptation was too great. He took the money and hid it for a long time in the bank. He after that took it outside and hid it under a church.

He never did use any of the money. The thing preyed on his mind all the time. They began to suspect him, placed him in another position, and through the careful work of the detective finally found out where this money was.

He was brought before the Federal court, was sentenced to Atlanta to serve his term there of two or three years. It cost the Federal Government not less than $250 or $300 to maintain that man in Atlanta.

In the meantime his family were thrown upon the public or their own resources for support.

I believe that a probation could have been used in that case. The Government would have been saved the cost of maintaining that man in prison. He would have been saved this stigma of a prison sentence. He was not a criminal. The officers of the bank did not feel that he was a criminal. It was his first offense. He was a man who had been trusted before and who was deeply penitent for what he had done and who desired to make restitution for what he had done. Still there was no power to give him probation.

Since he has come out of prison, to my personal knowledge, he has bought and paid for his home. In these days of extravagance and luxury, when men are buying automobiles and all sorts of luxuries and throwing money away, it is perfectly good evidence that he is the type of man who could have been trusted in the community without having suffered the stigma of a prison sentence. Mr. SUMNERS. May I ask the gentleman a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SUMNERS. I believe the committee would like to have your opinion as to whether or not it would be feasible for the Federal courts to cooperate with the State organizations. Also I would like a very brief expression of opinion as to what degree of service and how satisfactory it is that you get from volunteers who act as probation officers."

Judge RICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that that question has been asked.

Mr. SUMNERS. May I make just this suggestion to you? I think I know the mind of the gentleman of the committee about all these things you have gone over. We would like to get right down to the practical operation of this process.

Judge RICKS. In answer to the first question, Judge Crawley (?) of the district court in Richmond has already called on us from time to time to lend him one of our probation officers, to make an investigation concerning a case which was before his court.

We have gladly rendered that service. I believe other communities in the State, other cities, and other counties gladly render the same service in cooperation with the Federal courts in the use of

probation officers to help out the Federal courts where they have a call for a probation officer.

Mr. HERSEY. They could only cooperate by having a law like this?

Judge RICKS. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. May I call your attention to one part of Mr. Sumner's questions which you have not answered? I think he inquired as to the availability and efficiency of volunteer probation officers as distinguished from paid probation officers.

Judge RICKS. I was just coming to that, sir. I may say very frankly that my own experience is that volunteer probation officers are not as effective in their work as paid probation officers.

I think there are instances where volunteer probation officers can be used effectively, provided there is some supervision.

He must be given to understand that he is going to be held to the same accountability as though he were a paid probation officer if he goes into the work; what we should get from the volunteer probation officer is good results.

Mr. YATES. I notice your provision that the court may appoint a probation officer, and also the provision that if he draws a salary he is appointed by the Civil Service Commission.

Judge RICKS. Yes, sir.

Mr. YATES. The accountability there is not so direct.

Judge RICKS. The judge may require it. The judge may say to him before he place anyone under his supervision, "The court is going to require you to make a report from time to time on the conduct of this man, whether he is working, whether he is taking care of his family, whether he is keeping good company, or whether he is still keeping the same company that got him into this trouble."

That, by the way, is the purpose of the probation officer, to be a friend of the offender, to tie up to him, to help him find a place to live, if he has no home, to help him secure employment, if he is out of a job, and to help him break away from the companionships which have brought him into this trouble.

Mr. SUMNERS. May I interrupt? I do not want to be discourteous but there are some things we want to know. I do not know about the work of the probation officer, but do you think that the peculiar qualifications of a probation officer can be tested by a civil service examination, or determined in that way?

Judge RICKS. I am perfectly frank to say in selecting probation officers myself, we do use an examination. But we allow large weight to personality and to previous experience.

I am not familiar enough with the rules of the civil service to know whether that can be done under the rules of civil service. I do say it should be done, if it is not, because you must have men of good personality and some experience and some real interest in that sort of work in order to get an effective and valuable probation officer.

Mr. SUMNERS. Just let me ask you one other question, from your experience. Do you think a judge who is responsible for putting the person on probation ought to have the determination with free discretion in the selection of the personnel that are to watch over the prisoners?

Judge RICKS. I think that depends somewhat upon the judge. Mr. SUMNERS. I am speaking generally.

Judge RICKS. Certainly, sir; I think there ought to be some rules laid down to govern the selection of probation officers. Otherwise I am afraid judges will do the easiest thing, which is to appoint some man who happens to be a sort of court hanger-on, who may have no real qualifications for the job at all, but still has some personal influence with the judge.

I am not saying that in disparity of the court. It is just a perfectly natural thing. It is a sort of human way of doing things, that we pass this on to a friend of ours who happens to be close to us, without checking up, someti:nes, as to whether that particular person is qualified or not.

I think there ought to be some regulations laid down in the selection of probation officers.

Mr. SUMNERS. Who do you think should select, and who do you think should exercise discretion wherein discretion is to be exercised? Judge RICKS. In Virginia, of course, we have a board of public welfare, and that board exercises that discretion in our State.

We appoint upon the recommendation of this board. They are supposed to consider the qualifications of the respective candidates, consider them impartially, and then the court appoints from a list of eligibles recommended by that board.

There may be just one appointment, but the board may recommend two or three names. From a list of 10 who have taken the examination and who are supposed to be proper persons to be appointed as probation officers, we make the appointment.

Mr. MICHENER. Don't you find, under a system of competive examinations, that only those people seek this position who want the employment? That is, the men who make the very best probation officers in the community, as a rule, are not the fellows looking for a job and will not go out and take a civil service examination, to compete with some one else for political preferment, for a hanger-on job, as you suggest?

Judge RICKS. There is something to that. It is certainly true, and the only way to handle that situation is for persons who are interested in the comunity to encourage the right type of man to take the examination.

Mr. MICHENER. I have one other question. I notice the bill provides that certain officers may act without compensation, except in case it shall appear to any such judge or judges that the needs of the service require that there should be a salaried probation officer. Is it your judgment that there should be many districts in the country where the judge should not determine that a paid officer was necessary?

Judge RICKS. I can not speak from the standpoint of the Federal judge, but I am perfectly frank to say to you that I think every Federal court is going to have efficient service; that is, it is going to look for efficient service. Every district court is going to need at least one paid probation officer. That is my opinion.

Mr. YATES. Don't you think there should be some provision as to the salary, other than leaving the matter entirely in the discretion of the judge?

Judge RICKS. I think that would be very wise, sir.

Mr. YATES. One judge might consider a probation officer should be paid well while another would consider that he should be paid a small sum?

Judge RICKS. I think there should be a minimum and maximum salary fixed within which the court could act.

Mr. YATES. That is all.

Mr. CHUTE. Mr. Chairman, may I say just a word on this point? Every probation officer in the State of New York is under the civil service, and has been for about 10 years. They are all appointed through the civil-service examinations.

People are generally in favor of that system. The judges are in favor of the system. There is enough leeway given to the courts, so that they may take part in the selection.

The civil-service examination gives qualified candidates to the judge. The judge may appoint, when he has a position to fill, from the first three at the head of the list.

The examinations in the city of New York and in the State of New York are very practical and have been very successful. Usually 60 per cent of the rating on the examination is given to experience and personality. There is a rating on experience and a rating on personality.

There is an oral examination, so that they usually get at the right qualities of the probation officer.

This work of probation, when it is well done, and especially in the Federal courts, is not a mere voluntary, sentimental thing at all. It is professional work.

Mr. SUMNERS. Will you pardon an interruption?

Mr. CHUTE. Yes.

Mr. SUMNERS. We understand that. I am trying to get what we need, information. What agency in the State of New York gives the civil-service examination?

Mr CHUTE. The State civil-service commission for the counties and the city civil-service commission in first-class cities. In New York City, it is the municipal civil-service commission.

They call in expert assistants. In the State civil service commission they almost always call in a representative of the State probation commission. We are pretty well organized there.

There is a State probation commission which is interested in developing probation work in all the courts, and a representative of that commission sits in the oral examination.

I have no doubt that the United States Civil Service Commission would follow the system in New York and use that kind of an examination, call in to assist in the examination people who knew of the qualities needed in probation officers.

Mr. SUMNERS. The determination of this particular qualification rests. to a degree, with the people who live in the community, and who have all sorts of opportunity of determining their qualifications. Mr. CHUTE. The examination is held by impartial examiners who inquire to get full information, and then pass upon it.

Mr. SUMNERS. I understand that. That is not what I asked you. I asked if the people who determine the grades and examine the applicants are people who have pretty definite community contact. with the community from which the applicants come, and whether

it is regarded as valuable to have people of that kind act in that capacity.

Mr. CHUTE. NO; I do not think that is important. I do not think that would be important. They would be people who would be good judges of human nature and good judges of experience and ability, just as we would sit here and pass upon a man by asking him all about what he had done, and find out his interest in this work, his personality, his training, his education, etc.

Mr. SUMNERS. I do not desire to pursue that inquiry any further. Mr. HERSEY. There is just one question I should like to ask before you sit down. What about the salaries of the New York probation officers?

Mr. CHUTE. I am glad you mentioned that. I was going to say that our association is not in favor of fixing salaries in the bills in general. None of the salaries in New York State are fixed by legislation. They are determined by the recommendation to the judges and by the various civil authorities of the counties and cities.

There is more leeway that way, whereas if they are fixed in a law, it is hard to change them when they should be changed. I think that there would be a tendency to pay the maximum and it would cost the Government more, if you fix the salaries in the bill.

I would like to say in answer to the gentlemen, we have letters on hand and I should like to file them with you, Mr. Chairman, from many of the district judges. Not a few of them have said that they would not use the paid provision, but would be able to get along with volunteer workers. In my opinion, a majority of the district court judges at the start would not appoint paid probation officers.

I should like to file this memorandum in support of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

(The memorandum referred to is as follows:)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF A BILL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROBATION SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.

[S. 1042, by Senator Copeland; H. R. 5195, by Mr. Graham.]

PURPOSE OF THE BILL.

The purpose of this bill is to provide a system for the use of probation in the United States district courts in line with statutes now in effect in a large majority of the States. The power to suspend sentence and place suitable cases on probation at the court's discretion is very generally recognized to-day as necessary in all criminal courts, especially those that deal with children and young offenders, in order to bring about not only a humane but an efficient administration of justice. Every State in the Union now has a probation law, the law applying both to adult and to juvenile offenders in all but 12 of the States. Practically every civilized country has probation laws or their equivalent. The United States courts, except in the District of Columbia, where the probation system is authorized in all courts, have lagged far behind in this matter which it is the purpose of this bill to remedy.

THE AIMS AND METHODS OF PROBATION.

Probation is the method by which the court disciplines and gives an opportunity to reform to certain offenders without the hardship, the expense, and the risk of subjecting them to imprisonment. It is used especially for young or first offenders and those not hardened in crime. The defendants after an investigation (usually by a probation officer) are released on suspension of sentence and placed under the authoritative and helpful oversight of a man or woman appointed by the court as probation officer. Those on probation must