Juvenile Courts

Courts having special jurisdiction, of a paternal nature, over delinquent and neglected children. The thought that the child who has begun to go wrong, who has broken a law or ordinance, is to be taken in hand by the state, not as an enemy, but as a protector, led to the principle which was first fully declared in the act under which the juvenile court in Chicago was opened July 1, 1809. Colorado soon followed, and since that time similar legislation has been adopted in over 30 states, as well as In Great Britain and Ireland, Canada and the Australian colonies. Juvenile court legislation has assumed two aspects: In New York and a few other jurisdictions, protection is accomplished by suspending sentence, or in the case of removal from the home, sending the child to a school instead of a jail. But in Illinois and in most jurisdictions, the designated age of criminal responsibility is advanced from the common law age of 7 to some higher age, as 17 or 18, and linder most juvenile court acts a child under the designated age is to be proceeded against criminally only when, in the judgment of the judge presiding, the intere.st of the state and of the child requires this to be done; In re Powell, 6 Old. Cr. 495, 120 Pac. 1022; State v. Reed, 123 La. 411, 49 South. 3. Objection has been made that this is nevertheless a criminal proceeding and therefore the child is entitled to a trial by jury and to. all the constitutional rights that hedge about a criminal. The act, according to Com. v. Fisher, 213 Pa. 48, 62 Atl. 198, 5 Ann. Cas. 92, is but an exercise by the state of its supreme power over the welfare of its children. But if the proceedings against the individual are criminal, his Constitutional rights must be carefully safeguarded. Such penal acts are strictly construed; State v. Dunn, 63 Or. 304, 99 Pac. 278, 100 Pac. 268. For over two cenj.. tloh of the unfortunate diild. The proposition that this court could not act unless the child had property is wholly unsupported by either principle or authority; [1892] 2 Chan. 490; [1909] 2 Ch. 260. A juvenile court has jurisdiction of an offence by a child punishable by hard labor; State V. Reed, 123 La. 4lf, 49 South. 3. The jurisdiction to hear such cases Is generally vested in an existing court having equity powers. In some cities, however, special courts have been provided. By Colorado Act of 1909, provision is made for hearings before masters in chancery to be appointed by a juvenile court judge and acting under his direction. The legislature cannot confer on circuit court commissioners powers with reference 'to juvenile offenders which require proceedings within the power of courts of record only; Hunt v. Wayne Circuit Judges, 142 Mich. 93, 105 N. W. 531, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 004, 7 Ann. Cas. 821. See an article in 23 Harv. L. Rev. 104, by Julian Mack. The legislature cannot confer on circuit court commissioners powers with reference to juvenile offenders which require proceedings within the power of courts of i*ecord only; Hunt v. Wayne Circuit Judges, 142 Mich. 93, 105 N. W. 531, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 564, 7 Ann. Cas. 821. A Pennsylvania statute designated the court of quarter se.sslons as a juvenile court; it was contended that the tribunal was an unconstitutional body and without jurisdiction, but it was held that “the court of quarter sessions is not simply a criminal court. The constitution recognizes it, but says nothing as to its jurisdiction. Its existence antedates our colonial times, and by the common law and statutes, both here and in England, It lias for generations been a court of broad general police powers In no way connected with its criminal jurisdiction.,.. With its juexercised by it as a general police court, and, instead of creating a distinctly new court, the act of 1903 does nothing more than confer additional powers upon the old court and clearly define them,... It is a mere convenient designation of the court of quarter sessions to Call it when caring for children a juvenile court, but no such court as an independent tribunal is created. It is still a court of quarter sessions before which the proceedings are conducted... and the records are still those of the court of quarter sessions;” Com. v. Fisher, 213 Pa. 48, 62 Atl. 198, 5 Ann. Cas. 92. An earlier act in that state had been held unconstitutional (1901) as creating a classification which offended against the provision forbidding the passage of any special law regulating practice and jurisdiction in judicial proceedings or granting to any individual any special privilege or immunity; Mansfield’s Case, 22 Pa. Super. Ct, 224. A Missouri act relating to neglected and delinquent childi'en was upheld, though It provided a rule of procedure and punishment for such children which was not applicable to the same class of children in other counties, upon the ground that the conditions which prevail in thickly settled districts reasonably justified the distinction; Elx parte Loving, 178 Mo. 194, 77 S. W. 508.