_The Probation Movement_, long known and developed in Massachusetts, has during this last decade made great national progress. Nevertheless the probation movement faces grave dangers. It is on the defensive. The methodology of probation is still in the experimental stage. More important than the extension of the system is the building up of an effective technique. In too many places probation is still synonymous either with sentimental leniency or with perfunctory police surveillance. The most essential factors in probation work are the educative, reformatory and reconstructive work represented by home visitation, the development of right mental habits and the rendering of practical assistance. The improvement of probation methods depends primarily upon the appointment of interested, faithful and competent probation officers. The tendency is strongly in the direction of increasing the number of public salaried probation officers. Although this tendency is inevitable and desirable, it brings in its trail the gravest danger of which the probation system must meet, namely the danger of appointments being made through the influence of partisan politics. Those interested in the probation system should therefore look squarely in the face the question as to how probation officers should be appointed; whether by judges without interference by any outside regulations or authorities; whether through civil service examination; whether upon the approval of some outside body such as a state probation commission, or whether the appointing power should be vested in authorities other than the judges, as in local non-partisan, non-sectarian committees or commissions. Ex-Attorney-General Julius M. Mayer dissents from the foregoing paragraph as follows: “I am opposed to the appointing power being placed in anybody except the judges, which, to my mind, leaves open only the question as to whether examinations should be competitive or non-competitive.” In a further letter Judge Mayer writes: “There cannot be any discussion as to who should appoint probation officers. It is absurd to say that any person outside of the judge should appoint. I personally should refuse, if a judge, to place anybody on probation if the probation officers were appointed by any one but the court or judge. As a matter of fact I doubt seriously whether in New York State there would be any legal power in any other body to make any such appointment. The suggestions, in this regard, are, to my mind, utterly absurd and unworthy of being dignified by being incorporated in our report.”