REVIEWS 139
large scale, we must not blame him overmuch ; for one cannot bestow all his wisdom in the compass of two hundred pages with wide mar- gins, and the publication of all extant wisdom must ever remain a task for division of labor and co-operative enterprise. Enough for us that the arts and crafts movement is shown to have its place and its task in the world of social experiment, and that men are found ready to
make sacrifices for it.
CHARLES RICHMOND HENDERSON.
The Science of Penology. Collated and systematized by HENRY M. BOIES. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1901. Pp. 459.
THERE are two points of merit in this publication : the book is a record of the observations and meditations of a man of experience, and the conclusions reached are summarized in a working program at the end. The limits of the claim are frankly stated on the title page, " collated and systematized." The materials have apparently all been published in earlier works ; but the opinions expressed have the weight of a careful witness who has acted for years as a member of the Board of Public Charities in Pennsylvania.
The author thinks (p. 4) that penology is " the main trunk of soci- ology," because "protection from violence and crime was the origin of all law."
The failure of all penal law is affirmed in terms too strong ; for the author himself (p. 16) tells us that, whereas, in former ages, all men were what we should describe as criminal, now only 2 per cent, of the population has this anti-social character.
Most of us may agree with Mr. Boies in favoring the indeterminate or " indefinite " sentence, if carefully guarded ; but it is not certain that this principle is approved abroad by most penologists (p. 143). His plan of control for persons conditionally released is worthy of consid- eration, because it introduces the German idea of judicial supervision, removes the power from the purely administrative officers, and thus breaks the force of many objections urged by lawyers and judges.
The statement that the " crank " and " treadmill " have " long " been abandoned (p. 264) is not correct; for the present writer saw both of them in use in London in 1895.
The treatment of the prison labor question is sane and careful, although many will object to his recommendation of machinery in penitentiaries.
