Since the last annual report of this Committee, in the State of Pennsylvania a system of parole for criminals sentenced to the Eastern and to the Western Penitentiaries in accordance with legislative enactment, went into effect. The act provides that the court in pronouncing sentence shall state the minimum and maximum limits thereof, with the understanding that the minimum time of such imprisonment shall be the minimum now or hereafter prescribed by statute for the punishment of such offense, and that the maximum shall be the maximum now or hereafter prescribed as the penalty. Hence it does not follow, as has been supposed by many, that the minimum sentence is in every case one fourth of the maximum sentence, though there is a provision that when there is no minimum time prescribed by law, then the court shall impose a minimum sentence, which is not to exceed one fourth of the maximum time for the crime in question. Neither is a prisoner entitled to release at the expiration of his minimum sentence, unless it shall have appeared to the officers of the prison and to the inspectors that the applicant for parole has given evidence of being ready to become useful to the community. The new law has not been in force for a period sufficiently long to enable us to decide absolutely as to its merits, yet, if we are to have confidence in reports from other States which have tested such a law, we hope that a fair trying out of its provisions will demonstrate its benefit both to the convict and to society. The man or woman on parole by the necessity of the conditions involved therewith must give satisfaction until the maximum time for which he was sentenced has expired, by which time we believe many of them will have formed a habit of living decently and orderly. Ex-Governor Hanly, of Indiana, acknowledges that when he took office he felt great antagonism toward a law providing for parole before the expiration of the conventional sentence, but after closely observing the practical working of such system of parole during his term of four years, he became an enthusiastic advocate of the principle of the indeterminate sentence. State after State, nation after nation, have been for some years applying this principle in some form or other, and now many intelligent jurists and administrators of prison discipline have recognized that this element of the new penology has come to stay. This method of reforming criminals, moreover, was approved, after spirited discussion, by the late International Prison Congress, held at Washington, D. C., October 2-8, 1910. This Congress was not composed of mere theorists. Men of national and international renown as wardens and superintendents of great prisons and reformatories took part in the discussions and acquiesced in the conclusions. Warden Benham, of the New York State Penitentiary at Auburn, regards the indeterminate sentence as a leading influence in the process of reforming the lives of those who have fallen. By some