In the foregoing analysis of the penal system of this Commonwealth, the Commission has endeavored not only to present a picture of the existing conditions in the light of modern conceptions of penology but to point out, also, the lines of a sound and progressive development of the system. Most of the suggestions thus made have already been embodied in the penal systems of other states and of enlightened communities beyond the seas. Especially is this the case in such matters as the general employment of the prison population in useful and productive labor and in the substitution of farm and cottage colonies for the old type of prison. In a few of the larger cities and in some institutions promising beginnings have been made in the mental examination of delinquents with a view to the provision of specialized treatment for those found to be mentally afflicted or seriously defective. But in no State or country, as yet, have all these improvements been welded into a comprehensive system which makes them available for the entire delinquent population. The inertia or indifference which leaves the extension of these benefits to chance or to the slow contagion of example is unworthy of a great and progressive Commonwealth which has in the past more than once demonstrated its capacity for leadership in penal reform. It is evident that the general adoption in this State of these modern improvements in the treatment of the criminal problem can be effected only through the institution of a central agency adapted to secure a co-ordination of effort and a uniformity of development which under the present system of separate control has been demonstrated to be impossible. It seems equally evident, however, that the system of separate management of the several institutions with their diverse aims and problems possesses advantages which we would not willingly sacrifice to an ideal unity. For this reason the Commission has not deemed it wise to recommend the example of other States which have committed the management of all their correctional establishments to a central board of control. Moreover, with such a body as the Board of Public Charities already vested with a certain authority over the penal institutions of the State, it has not been deemed desirable to recommend the creation of a new and independent body to exercise a new jurisdiction over such institutions. It seems better to utilize the authority which already exists, to enlarge its range of functions to meet the needs of the proposed development and to commit the exercise of these functions to a standing committee analogous to the existing Committee on Lunacy. Through such a committee of the Board of Public Charities your Commission believes that the desired co-ordination and future development of the penal system of the Commonwealth can best be secured. VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS.