FIFTH INTERNATIONAL PRISON CONGRESS. 397 



brilliant receptions were extended by the President of the Repub- 

 lic, the Minister of the Interior, and the city of Paris, and a series 

 of complimentary banquets tested the digestive capacity of the 

 delegates to the utmost. 



The session of the congress extended over ten days. It was 

 divided into four sections. The first related to penal legislation, 

 the second to prison administration, the third to preventive means, 

 and the fourth to juvenile offenders. Separate sessions of each 

 section were held every morning. In the afternoon there was a 

 general assembly of the whole congress and reports from the work 

 of each section were heard, discussed, and voted upon. 



The first section, dealing with questions of penal legislation, 

 drew together a fine array of legal talent. Nice questions of the- 

 ory came up for discussion, but they were generally obliged to 

 yield to practical considerations. The great plague of penolo- 

 gists as well as of society is the recidivist, or the "repeater/' or 

 " rounder," as he is more familiarly called in this country. He is 

 the man or woman who has been in prison half a dozen, or it may 

 be fifty or a hundred, times. The sentiment of the congress was 

 in favor of a gradual accumulation of penalties and of long sen- 

 tences for professional criminals. The laws of different countries 

 differ in the classification of these recidivists. But the congress 

 wisely decided that the dangerous attitude of the criminal toward 

 society was the main thing to consider. It did not present a 

 scheme of penalties, it did not decide in favor of definite or in- 

 definite sentences; it left much to the discretion of the judge, 

 though the feeling was expressed that judges are often more in- 

 fluenced by the gravity of the special act or by the circumstances 

 of the crime than by facts which may clearly reveal the danger- 

 ous character of the criminal. 



A hot debate, continued through several sessions, occurred on 

 transportation. Though we have long since settled this question 

 in England and America, it is a practical question with France 

 and Russia. In Russia transportation has existed for three hun- 

 dred years, but it has not tended to reduce crime. None are better 

 aware of this than many prominent Russian jurists and penolo- 

 gists, and an interesting phase of the discussion was the presence 

 of a distinguished representative from Russia, Prof. Ivan Foinit- 

 ski. Professor of Law in the University of St. Petersburg and 

 general advocate of the Court of Cassation, who led the battle 

 against transportation. Prof. Foinitski has written an important 

 work on the subject, which has just been made available in French 

 through a translation by M. G. Bonet- Maury. In this volume, 

 after an elaborate description of transportation in England and 

 Russia, he shows that it has nothing but negative results to offer, 

 and rejects entirely the arguments advanced for it. In France 



