The Assembly was convinced of the righteousness of the plea for an indeterminate sentence which might more closely correspond with its title than the law as amended in 1911, hence the members of the Assembly by a solid majority amended the law of 1911 so that any convict who had served one-third of the maximum sentence as prescribed by the Court should be eligible for parole. Mark that the law explicitly states that such convicts are _eligible_ for parole, _not_ that they _shall_ be paroled. The time when they should be paroled, if paroled under any event, is decided by the Parole Board. Granted that we have a judicious Parole Board, who can better decide when a man is entitled to liberty, the judge or the jury who note the crime and see the man at the time of his trial, or the men who are supposed not only to know the circumstances of the crime but also to become familiar with the man’s attitude and general character? In this country freedom is man’s birthright, and if by some error or mischance he loses that liberty, it should be restored to him as soon as he shows that he can safely be trusted with it, and that he appreciates its value. But notwithstanding the favorable vote of both Houses of the Assembly, Governor Brumbaugh was not convinced of the correctness of the principle involved and so interposed a veto. With all due deference to the Chief Magistrate of this Commonwealth, we honestly differ with him in regard to this particular matter. The veto message was quite brief, the fear being expressed that some guilty of second degree murder, altho the circumstances might readily indicate a malicious murder of the first degree, might under the proposed act regain their freedom in something less than seven years. The statute provides a sentence of twenty years for murder of the second degree, but under the operation of the proposed amendment the guilty person would be liable for parole at the end of six years and eight months. It seems to be forgotten that the Parole Board exercises judicial functions, and very often refuses parole when the minimum time has expired. Eligibility to parole is far from synonymous with election to parole. The circumstances are closely investigated, and the record of the trial is carefully studied. In the case of any outrageous murder or burglary, the Board of Parole is amply justified in detaining the applicant beyond the time of the minimum sentence. In many cases the Board has very properly refused the application for parole and in a number of instances has decided it best to retain a criminal to the end of his maximum term.