past six weeks, she has been moping around the house, complaining of headaches all the time, she is losing weight and strength, she doesn't eat, she feels feverish and coughs up blood. What is the mater with her? What have we got on our hands, and what have we got to do? Is she going to get better or worse? What will be the result? If you treat her will it make her better? How should we treat her?" That is precisely the sort of problem the doctor is constantly being faced with.

Now for another example. Suppose a man comes up before a judge charged with stealing an automobile or a tire. The psychiatrist could be asked to answer similar questions with regard to him, and may be perfectly capable of telling you after a study of the man that it is absolutely a hopeless problem from the standpoint of society, that as long as he lives he will be a very persistent stealer and that his propensities for theft are totally irremediable, that for various reasons which he would outline for you it were useless to expect that the usual sentence for stealing a tire is going to do that particular individual any good. He would therefore strongly recommend against the type of treatment which consists in giving this man six months or six weeks or six years of what is called punishment with the idea that that is going to reform him. Or it might be a case for which a specific type of treatment might, from medical experiences, be expected to produce more favorable results.

The same thing might be applied to the individual who is being considered for parole. The psychiatrist might say, " It is not wise to parole this man. He will go back to doing the same thing." As several of the speakers pointed out this afternoon, there are many repeaters where the same type of crime is manifest, and yet nothing was suggested for this particular class of offenders.

The psychiatrists I can assure you are not hunting for a job. If you try to get one for your own court you will find that out only too quickly. As a matter of fact it is a matter of anxiety at the present that we haven't anything like enough psychiatrists to fill the present demands for court positions. Furthermore, if any of you have any lingering ideas that the psychiatrists are interested in the ridiculous spectacle of partisan testifying on one side or the other in criminal cases as to sanity, please get that idea out and get the ideas in that

I am about to read. Most important of all, get ready your criticisms and your corrections, your advice about the matter, because we believe, as I have said, that this is a legal problem for lawyers to solve. (Reading)

The Committee on the Legal Aspects of Psychiatry has recommended to the American Psychiatric Association that it declare itself as holding the following opinions:

(1) That the psychiatrist's chief concern is with the understanding and evaluating of the social and individual factors entering into failures in human life adaptations.

(2) That crime is a designation for one group of such adaptation failures, and hence falls definitely within the focus of psychiatry, not excluding, of course, certain other branches of science.

(3) That crime as well as other behavior and characterologic aberrancies can be scientifically studied, interpreted and controlled.

(4) That this study includes a consideration of the hereditary, physical, chemical, biological, social and psychological factors entering into the personality concerned throughout his life as well as (merely) in the specific "criminal" situation.

(5) That from a study of such data we are enabled in many cases to direct an attack upon one or more of the factors found to be active in a specific case to effect an alteration of the behavior in a propitious direction; while in other cases where this is not possible we are able in the light of past experience and discovered laws to foresee the probabilities to a degree sufficient to make possible proper provision against subsequent (further) injuries to society. By the same experience and laws we are enabled in still other cases to detect and endeavor to prevent the development of potential criminality.

(6) That these studies can be made with proficiency only by those properly qualified, i. e., scientists who have made it their life interest and study to understand and treat behavior disorders.

(7) That this point of view requires certain radical changes in legal procedure and legislative enactment, insuring the following provisions:

(a) The court appointment, from a qualified list, of the psychiatrists testifying in regard to the mental status, mechanisms, or capabilities of a prisoner; with opportunity for thorough psychiatric examination using such aids as psychiatrists customarily use in practice, clinics, hospitals, etc.; with obligatory written reports, and remuneration from public funds.

(b) The elimination of the use of the hypothetical question and the terms "insane" and "insanity," "lunacy," etc.

(c) The exemption of the psychiatrist from the necessity of pronouncing upon intangible concepts of religious and legal tradition in which he has no interest, concern or experience, such as "responsibility," "punishment" and "justice."

(d) The development of machinery adequate to the requirements of the psychiatric point of view in criminal trials and hearings, including court clinics and psychiatrists, and ultimately a routine compulsory psychiatric examination of all offenders with latitude and authority in the recommendations made to the court as to the disposition and treatment of the prisoner.

(8) That this also entails certain radical changes in penal practice, including:

(a) The substitution of the idea of treatment, painful or otherwise, for the idea of retributive punishment.

(b) The release of prisoners upon parole or discharge only after complete and competent psychiatric examination with findings favorable for successful rehabilitation, to which end the desirability of resident psychiatrists in all penal institutions is obvious.

(c) The permanent legal detention of the incurably inadequate, incompetent, and antisocial, irrespective of the particular offense committed.

(d) The development of the assets of this permanently custodial group to the point of maximum usefulness within the prison milieu, industrializing those amenable to supervised employment, and applying their legitimate earnings to the reimbursement of the state for their care and maintenance, to the support of their dependent relatives, and to the reimbursement of the parties injured by their criminal activities.

(9) That effective preventive medicine is applicable in the field of psychiatry in the form of mental health conferences and examinations, child guidance clinics, mental hygiene clinics, lectures and literature, and similar institutions and efforts.

(10) That the protection outlined provide an efficient and scientific solution to the problems of crime, viz.:

(a) The protection of society.

(b) The rehabilitation of the "criminal" if possible.

(c) His safe and useful disposition or detention if rehabilitation is impossible.

(d) The detection and the prevention or deflection of the development of criminality in those potentially predisposed.

The American Psychiatric Association is now considering this and other recommendations of its committee's report. We very sincerely hope that The American Bar Association will also consider and criticize it, and endorse it if they will, and cooperate with us in giving to the public and to those who are really interested in the crime problem such help as these sanitary engineers, as we have for the moment assumed the psychiatrists to be, can offer. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

JUDICIAL SECTION

The Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Judicial Section of The American Bar Association met in the Supreme Court room of the New Capitol Building, Denver, Colo., on Tuesday, July 13, 1926, at 2.30 P. M.

Honorable George W. Allen, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Colorado, made the address of welcome (see infra, p. 760), and the response was made on behalf of the judges by Honorable T. Scott Offutt, a member of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Section, and a Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Judge John S. Dawson, of the Supreme Court of Kansas, delivered an address upon the subject of the "Rationale of Appellate Procedure." (See infra, p. 778.)

Judge Haslett P. Burke, Justice of the Supreme Court of Colorado, delivered an address upon the subject of "Trial or Tournament." (See infra, p. 791.)

Dean Roscoe Pound, of the Harvard Law School, then gave an address upon the subject of "The Work of the American Appellate Court." (See infra, p. 764.)

These addresses were most interesting and dealt with the important phases of the work of the courts and the difficulties with which the administration of justice is now involved.

The following officers were elected for the ensuing year: Chairman, Judge Robert R. Prentiss, of the Supreme Court of Virginia; Vice Chairman, Judge J. Foster Synes, of the United States District Court of the District of Colorado. Members of the Executive Committee: Judge Frederick E. Crane, of.the Court of Appeals of New York; Judge T. Scott Offutt, of the Court of Appeals of Maryland; Judge Arthur J. Tuttle, of the United States District Court of the Southern District of Michi

gan; Judge Arthur P. Rugg, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts; and Judge William D. Evans, of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

The dinner of the Judicial Section was held at the Brown Palace Hotel on the evening of July 14, 1926. Chief Justice George W. Allen delivered an address upon the subject "Courts and Judges." The address of Judge Allen was thoroughly appreciated by all present.

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES I. ALLREAD, Chairman.,