ord," April 16, 1898, pages 4386 and 4387) its first article was couched in the following language:

"First-That the people of the island of Cuba are and of right ought to be free and independent, and that the Government of the United States hereby recognizes the Republic of Cuba as the true and lawful Government of that island."

But it is true also that on the 16th of April, 1898, when the resolution thus passed by the Senate was taken up by the House, the latter body, on motion of Mr. Dingley of Maine, decided to strike out of the first article all that was written in it after the word "independent." And as the House insisted upon its amendment, and as the Senate finally concurred in it, the result was the adoption of the resolution without the slightest recognition or mention of, or allusion to, the Republic of Cuba or the Cuban insurgents.

If the Congress of the United States, by deliberately striking out the words, "The Government of the United States hereby recognizes the Republic of Cuba as the true and lawful Government of that island," meant to make an "implicit and practical recognition of the same republic, its flag and its followers, the rules of logic and of grammar would be thoroughly revolutionized. To refuse a thing would be tantamount to granting it; and negative assertions could logically be turned into affirmative ones.

As to our "alliance" with the insurgents, it would be well to remember the language which President McKinley himself used in this respect. After proving exhaustively that the Cuban insurgents were not entitled to recognition as belligerents, and much less as an independent people, he said:

"Nor from the standpoint of expediency, I think, would it be wise or prudent for the Government to recognize at the present time the independence of the socalled Cuban Republic. Such recognition is not necessary in order to enable the United States to intervene and pacify the island. To commit the country now to the recognition of any particular government in Cuba might subject us to embarrassing conditions of international obligation towards the organization so recognized. In case of intervention our conduct would be subject to the approval or disapproval of such government. We would be required to submit to its direction, and to assume to it the mere relation of a friendly ally."

They are not friends of Cuba, nor are they friends of the United States, who torture the language of the joint resolution of Congress approved on April 20, 1898, into any kind of recognition of a "government," which at no time, as President Cleveland said, was more than "putative," and which, when created on paper, was created exclusively, as acknowledged by one, and perhaps the ablest, of its organizers, to enable the latter to contract obligations in the name

of Cuba, and to give validity to bonds, concessions, contracts, and promises issued or entered into by them.

The friends of Cuba, interested in the welfare of that beautiful and interesting island, which in the hands of the United States would be a perfect paradise, instead of sowing distrust and promoting and encouraging aspirations which can never be realized, should strive, on the contrary, to help the Cuban problem to be solved in the only way which is possible and natural, and the only way which can be satisfactory to all the parties concerned, namely, by making the connection between Cuba and the United States of America organic and permanent. No Cuban who has a dollar or desires to make it honestly aspires to any other thing; and those among the insurgents of 1895 who know what they are talking about concur in this opinion. No man has ever expressed himself more strongly in this sense than the one who was President of the so-called "Republic of Cuba," in the letter which he wrote from Cubitas to the "New York Times, which is reprinted in full on page 127 of Mr. Halstead's "Story of Cuba." He said:

"Cuba is properly American, as much as is Long Island, and I believe there can be but one ultimate disposition of it—to be included in the great American sisterhood of States."

Has any one better right to speak for the "Republic of Cuba" and for the insurgents of 1895 than the venerable Marquis of Santa Lucía, Salvador Cisneros y Betancourt, who sacrificed all things upon the altar of his country and signed his name to those words?

J. I. RODRIGUEZ

171

PROGRESS IN PENOLOGY.

Does the world move? That is the question we ask ourselves at the close of the century. In the wide realm of science and invention there is a ready response. It comes in the click of the telegraph, the voice of the telephone, the scream of the locomotive, the whirr of the electric car, and the flash of the electric light. In some lines of moral effort it may be difficult to answer the question; but in the realm of penology we can make our response without hesitation at the close of the nineteenth century. There is no department of science, whether physical or social, in which progress is more evident. It is progress in the development of principles and ideals, and it is advancement in their realization.

It is only in the century just closing that we have come to reap the fruit of the work of John Howard and of Beccaria in the last century, the first eminent for his influence in the reformation of prisons and the latter for his influence on criminal procedure and criminal law. Each of these men worked independently and alone. The era of organization was to come later. Organization has been most influential and effective in the last thirty years; and it is largely through its influence that national and international sentiment has been developed and unity of purpose and aim secured. Through the communication which such organization has established, the data it has collected, the comparisons it has furnished, we are able to gauge the progress which the world has made in treating the problems of crime and in dealing with the criminal.

The International Prison Association has just held its sixth quinquennial session at Brussels. It has been organized thirty years. Some 395 members were present, and some twenty-nine countries were represented by official delegates. Its existence was due primarily to the initiative of an eminent American penologist, the late Rev. E. C. Wines, and to the official encouragement and support given to the enterprise by the Government of the United States. Dr. Wines was not the first to secure international consideration of penological

problems. As early as 1846 several eminent penologists of Europe, among them Aubanel, Ducpetiaux, and Mittermaier, organized a congress of persons in different countries interested in the prevention of crime and in the study of penological questions. The congress was held in Frankfort-on-the-Main in that year, in Brussels in 1847, and again in Frankfort in 1857. These congresses were due entirely to private initiative and activity. No governments were officially represented, and they were not organized on a permanent basis. Dr. Wines was able, however, to unite private interest and activity with official power and influence. Both are necessary in a work of this kind. Official responsibility is necessary to give practical effect to reforms and also to check the extravagance of irresponsible sentimentalism; and private interest and activity are necessary to overcome the general inertia of officialism toward reforms and innovations. Dr. Wines was fortunate in securing the coöperation of the heads of Governments, of the directors of prison administration, and of some of the most prominent criminalists in Europe.

At the first Congress, held in London in 1871, twenty governments were represented. Then it became necessary to insure the life of the congress and to provide for its continued activity. This was done by the establishment of a permanent commission, composed of a representative from each government subscribing to its constitution and also to its treasury. The International Prison Commission, which is the executive and permanent arm of the Congress, endeavors to maintain some relation not only between the governments which are united for this object, but between experts in every land. Valuable as are the quinquennial meetings and discussions, a phase of its work still more valuable is the preparation of reports by experts and competent writers, in different countries, concerning questions and problems submitted by the Commission. It is thus able to secure the coöperation of a large number of experts who are not able to attend the Congress in person. These reports, based on official information and special investigation, furnish reliable data and indicate tendencies of thought, effort, and experiment. The conclusions of the Congress when formulated, if not decisive as to the questions treated, are influential and important in relation to both theory and practice. No organization has had so much influence upon the penal system of Europe.

La Société Générale des Prisons of France is another organization which in the last twenty-five years has promoted the development

of penology in France as well as in surrounding countries. The International Union for Comparative Criminal Law also grew out of the International Prison Congress. Criminal anthropology has created another international organization, in which the new school of criminologists, prominent now in Italy, is largely represented. On the side of applied philanthropy there is also in Europe an international organization of Prisoners' Aid Societies.

In the United States organizations for the improvement of prisons began in the last century. The Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons was organized in 1787, and the Pennsylvania Prison Society of to-day is the offspring of that society. New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts have State organizations for inspecting prisons, guiding legislation, and aiding discharged convicts. The National Prison Association, organized in 1870, has been in active operation during the last sixteen years and is the heir of earlier efforts. It succeeds in bringing together annually the prison wardens, the prison chaplains, the members of State boards of control, the prison commissioners of different States, professors of sociology, and students of penology.

These organizations, State, national, and international, like medical societies, local and general, are agencies for effecting and recording progress in that branch of moral surgery and therapeutics called penology. It is as true there as it is in medicine that an individual like Howard or Brockway, Elizabeth Fry or Ellen C. Johnson, can accomplish what no organization can effect; but it is equally true that organization is necessary to promulgate and diffuse and introduce in general practice the ideas, methods, and principles developed or applied by the individual theorist or practitioner. While they grapple actively with the problems of crime these organizations have a retrospect and a history. They furnish records of accumulated experience and discussion. We can trace the history of penal surgery as readily as abdominal surgery. The International Prison Commission is most important of all in furnishing a viewpoint from which we may see the winding, upward trail.

If there is one thing on which penologists the world over are fully agreed, it is in demanding a certain standard of physical condition as the test of a civilized prison. It is not a standard of comfort or luxury, but a standard of light, cleanliness, food, ventilation, and other sanitary conditions for the prisoner, and a certain standard of security for society. This standard is by no means universally realized, but it is