The Founding of the Connecticut Delinquency Court 1903 - 1941

FoUnDInG tHE ConnECtICUt

DELInQUEnCY CoURt, 1903-1941

BY HEnRY S. CoHn* AnD GoRDon S. BAtES**

on January 1, 2010, jurisdiction for delinquency cases in

the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters expanded beyond

age sixteen, ending at a youth’s seventeenth birthday; on

July 1, 2012 that jurisdiction will expand again to the

youth’s eighteenth birthday.1 this was the first time in at

least ninety years that the jurisdiction of the juvenile delin-

quency court has expanded.2 this change in the law engen-

dered much controversy (mostly over costs and staffing).3

this historic change thus presents an opportune time to

review the founding of the Connecticut juvenile court and

also to review the important role in its creation played by

the Connecticut Prison Association.4

I. HIStoRY oF tHE JUvEnILE CoURt In ConnECtICUt5

the earliest separate courts for juveniles were estab-

lished in Chicago and Denver after 1899.6 this separate

juvenile court concept quickly spread to Connecticut. the

Hartford Courant in the first decade of the 20th century car-

2011] FOunDinG tHe COnneCtiCut DeLinquenCy COurt 301

* Judge, Connecticut Superior Court.** Retired Minister, United Church of Christ; Former Executive Director,

Connecticut Prison Association.1 Conn. GEn. StAt. § 46b-120, as amended by P.A. 09-7, § § 69, 82 (Sept.

Spec. Sess.).2 there were other recent changes as well to the statutes regarding “children

from families with service needs,” known in the court as FWSns. See Conn. GEn.StAt. §§ 46b-148 and 46b-149.

3 the struggle to pass the “raise the age” legislation is set forth atwww.ctjja.org, the website of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance.

4 the Connecticut Prison Association is now known as Community Partnersin Action or CPA. See generally Community Partners in Action, Who We Are, foundat http://www.cpa-ct.org/about-us.php.

5 the legislative history of the Connecticut juvenile court was previouslyaddressed in two scholarly papers, both on file with the Connecticut State Library.See William C. Bieluch, A Legislative and Genetic History of Connecticut’s JuvenileCourt Act of 1941 (1942) (prepared for a Yale Law School course); Francis J.Carmody, Jr., A History of the Origin and Development of the Juvenile Court inConnecticut, 1917-1942 (1949) (prepared for a course at University of ConnecticutSchool of Social Work). In 1971, Connecticut office of Legislative Research lawintern Richard Dunn wrote a paper entitled Legislative Development of theJuvenile Court System in Connecticut.

6 See Carmody, supra note 5, at 4.

ried several articles on the wisdom of establishing juvenile

courts for delinquents. Judge Willis Brown from Salt Lake

City visited the Hartford YMCA in 1909, explaining how his

court gave juveniles a chance to live a better life.7 Judge

Ben B. Lindsey, founder of the Denver Juvenile Court,

spoke in April 1909 at the Unity Club in Hartford.8

the Denver Juvenile Court brought about the “regenera-

tion of the whole system of dealing with juvenile offenders in

the state of Colorado.”9 Lindsey declared that adult prisons

were “schools of crime.”10 A better approach was not to

charge a juvenile with a “crime,” but to give him help and

education. In protecting the child, the state was also protect-

ing itself. the Biblical lesson of forbidding theft was taught,

but with sympathy, kindness, and understanding. the court

used probation officers to investigate facts and assist the chil-

dren. Lindsey set forth a series of related stories drawn from

his court, including one about “Mickey,” a bright youngster

from the slums who had been “turned around.”11

the Connecticut legislature over the years from 1903 to

1941 put the juvenile court into effect, as well as a juvenile

probation system.12 A major issue for establishment of a

statewide juvenile court in Connecticut was that offenders,

when arrested, were processed in their home town. Some larg-

er cities had police courts, but most towns merely had a justice

of the peace enforcing criminal law. It was costly for the state

to establish a regional or statewide juvenile justice system.13

the first statute, passed in 1903, merely states that:

302 ConnECtICUt BAR JoURnAL [vol. 85

7 importance of example, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Feb. 15, 1909, at 5.8 the Misfortunes of Mickey, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Apr. 19, 1907, at 7. 9 id.10 id.11 id. Judge Julian Mack of Chicago describes Judge Lindsey’s courtroom

style as follows: “Seated at a desk, with a child at his side, where he can occa-sionally put his arm around his shoulder and draw the lad to him, the judge, whilelosing none of his judicial dignity, will gain immensely in the effectiveness of hiswork.” Julian Mack, the Juvenile Court, 23 HARv. L. REv. 104, 120 (1909). Mack,quoting Judge Lindsey, states that the purpose of the juvenile court is to “help allit can, and to hurt as little as it can; it seeks to build character – to make good cit-izens rather than useless criminals. the state is thus helping itself as well as thechild, for the good of the child and the good of the state.” id. at 121-22.

12 See generally, Bieluch, supra note 5, at 2-22.13 See id.; see also Carmody, supra note 5, at 23-26.

Whenever any minor shall have been arrested, the clerk ofthe [superior, common pleas, district, police, city, or bor-ough or town] court before which said minor is broughtshall, if practicable, notify said probation officer in advance,and said court may commit said minor to the care and cus-tody of said probation officer, both before and after trial,and the trial of such minor shall, whenever practicable, beheld in chambers.14

By 1905, the commitment to the probation officer applied

before trial and the phrase “trials in chambers” was delet-

ed.15 the probation officers in each court were under the

control of the Connecticut Prison Association.16

the legislature took more specific action in 1917 by

Chapter 308.17 the terminal age for a juvenile was set at

eighteen and the first prosecution was to be heard in cham-

bers “unless the offense charged is one that shall be punish-

able by imprisonment in the state prison or by the death

penalty.”18 In a subsequent prosecution, the court could decide

on whether the juvenile offense might be tried in chambers.19

there was no separate juvenile court, but the already-

established courts in each town were to hold “separate dock-

ets” for juveniles, not open to the public on the first offense,

unless the first offense was an aggravated one.20

Subsequent offenses were to be public if the court deemed it

advisable. Finally the 1917 legislation provided that “cities

having a population of twenty thousand or more may, by

ordinance or by-laws, provide for juvenile courts to be con-

ducted by a judge of the police or city court of such munici-

pality . . .”21 the legislature, again with a fiscal eye, pro-

vided that the ordinance could demand nothing further than

that the town must set up a specific existing courtroom for

the proceedings.


14 P.A. 1903 ch. 126, § 3. See also Bieluch, supra note 5, at 2. 15 P.A. 1905, ch. 142, § 3. See also Bieluch, supra note 5, at 4. 16 See Bieluch, supra note 5, at 42. the origin and mission of the Connecticut

Prison Association is discussed below.17 P.A. 1917 ch. 308. See also Bieluch, supra note 5, at 8. 18 P.A. 1917 ch. 308, § 4. 19 id.20 id., § 6.21 PA 1917 ch. 308, § 7; see also Bieluch, supra note 5, at 9.

those who wanted a truly separate juvenile court, such

as the Connecticut Child Welfare Association, established in

1918,22 and the Connecticut Prison Association, achieved

better success in 1921, by Chapter 336.23 there was to be a

separate system of juvenile courts within each existing city,

police, borough and town courts, and any town without such

courts through the justice of peace or probate court.24

the 1921 legislation also provided that this court was

“wholly separate” from all other courts with its records

closed to the public.25 the juvenile court had original juris-

diction for children under 16, but the prosecutor could

transfer to juvenile court, any child’s case who was age 16 to

18.26 Hearings were to exclude those persons not necessary

for adjudication, and were to take place in a separate room

from that used for the conduct of adult criminal business.27

the judges were, however, the same as those in the local

criminal court.28

the juvenile probation officer was to investigate and

report to the court.29 Finally “[n]o child shall be prosecuted

for an offense before a juvenile court, nor shall the adjudi-

cation of such court that a child is delinquent in any case be

deemed a conviction of crime.”30

the towns under this legislation were obliged to seek

new space for juvenile hearings. the city of Hartford moved

the juvenile court out of the police court location to a build-

ing on Washington Street shared by the Connecticut

Humane Society, an animal rights group.31

the 1921 Act was held constitutional in Cinque v.

Boyd.32 there a fourteen-year-old was found a delinquent


22 Carmody, supra note 5, at 14. 23 P.A. 1921 ch. 336.24 id., § 2.25 id., § 2. 26 id., § 1. 27 id., § 11.28 Carmody, supra note 5, at 16.29 P.A. 1921 ch. 336, § 23.30 id., § 18; see also Carmody, supra note 5, at 17. 31 Favors Juvenile Court Proposal, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Dec. 14, 1921, at 22.32 99 Conn. 70, 121 A. 678 (1923).

in the City Court of new Haven, sitting as the juvenile

court, and was sent to the Connecticut School for Boys in

Meriden. He had participated in robbery of an intoxicated

man of $2.50. His father’s habeas corpus challenged the

constitutionality of the 1921 Act on the following grounds:

(1) Cinque was improperly denied bail; (2) Cinque was

denied the sixth amendment right to confront witnesses and

could not cross-examine; (3) the criminal rules of evidence

were not followed at Cinque’s hearing; (4) Cinque was

denied a jury trial; (5) Cinque was confined at a penal insti-

tution without being convicted; (6) “the statutes provide for

an unreasonable and unjust discrimination, since juvenile

courts are only established in certain localities and not oth-

ers”; and (7) the term “delinquent” was too vague.33

the Supreme Court, in an unanimous opinion written by

Associate Justice John E. Keeler, upheld the constitutional-

ity of the 1921 Act. From an early date, safeguarding chil-

dren was a goal of the legislature. the purpose of the 1921

legislation was not to create a court to prosecute children,

but to establish a court to make a “civil inquiry” of whether

direct state care was needed to improve an adolescent’s

life.34 thus the Act was not unconstitutional for failing to

provide Bill of Rights safeguards.35 nor was the allegation

of robbery enough to make this a criminal proceeding;

rather the court was engaged in an “examination.”36

the Act was not unconstitutional because one city had a

juvenile court that was part of the regular criminal court

while a rural court might be conducted by a justice of the

peace. the legislature was not required to establish a juve-

nile court in any particular manner.37 nor were the provi-

sions of the 1921 Act “vague.”38 the Act was sufficiently def-

inite. Significantly, the right to bail was not discussed in the

1921 Act; only detention was allowed, if called for. Under


33 id. at 74.34 id. at 83. 35 id. at 84-89.36 id. at 78. 37 id. at 90. 38 id. at 90-91.

these circumstances, the court held that the child, Cinque

was allowed to be free while the charges were pending.39

the next step for the reformers was to try for a

statewide, uniform court. In 1935, the General Assembly

created two experimental courts, one in the urban area of

Fairfield county, and the other in the rural area of

Windham county.40 In these two counties, all pending juve-

nile cases were transferred from the towns in the jurisdic-

tions to the county juvenile court. Frederick W. Huxford of

Stamford was appointed the Fairfield judge with a salary of

$5,000, and Edward L. Dennis of Scotland was appointed

judge of the Windham court with a salary of $3,000.41 their

terms were for four years; they were nominated by the gov-

ernor and approved by the General Assembly.42

In the terms of the legislature in 1937 and 1939, the uni-

fied court bills failed.43 the reformers, in a losing effort,

raised a scathing 1931 report from the Bureau of Child

Welfare.44 In 109 towns there were no town courts, only jus-

tices of the peace. this meant that justices of the peace fre-

quently had juvenile cases. Such records as existed showed

more commitments to the girls’ Long Lane Farm and the

School for Boys in Meriden were ordered from the justice

courts than from the town courts. the rural probation offi-

cers were part-time and ill-paid. they were not fully quali-

fied and included “[a]n undertaker, a harness maker, a

dietician, a florist, two printers, three editors, a reporter, a

YMCA secretary, two town treasurers, two foremen, two

dentists, an engineer, two charity commissioners, a building

inspector, and two storekeepers.” Detention homes were

deficient as well.45


39 id. at 92-93. 40 See Carmody, supra note 5, at 29; Bieluch, supra note 5, at 17; Dunn, supra

note 5, at 3.41 Carmody, supra note 5, at 29.42 id.43 Bieluch, supra note 5, at 18-19.44 Juvenile Court Methods Hit in Welfare report, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Feb. 6,

1931, at 1-2.45 See id.

the Hartford Courant strongly endorsed reform. An edi-

torial of January 17, 1935, highlighted the issue of the

judges.46 they presumably would be appointed for each

county. But who would make the appointments—the gover-

nor or the Superior Court judges? Another issue outstand-

ing was, given the need for professional probation officers,

how were they to be appointed and funded? Perhaps the

chief probation officer would have a role.

By 1937 chaos reigned. there were bills proposing seven

juvenile “circuit courts,” while other bills proposed five cir-

cuits.47 Another bill made the General Assembly the

appointing authority; alternatively, the General Assembly

would have exclusive authority until 1941 when the gover-

nor would assume the appointing role.48 In 1937 and 1939,

the cost of the court also entered the debate.49

After the failure of the 1937 legislation, the Public

Welfare Council and the Child Welfare Council testified in

1938 before the Legislative Council of the General Assembly

and received a commitment to introduce legislation in1939.

the groups argued that with a statewide system, fewer

juveniles would be committed, thereby resulting in cost-sav-

ings. the courts in each county would be supported by these

reductions in cost.

But again the 1939 bill did not pass, although it

remained on the legislative calendar to the last day of the

session. Raymond Baldwin, who had represented Cinque,

and was an advocate of reform, was now governor, but he

could not find funding for the child neglect side of the court.

the extent that municipal funding might be needed for the

juvenile court scared some of the legislators away from sup-

porting any juvenile legislation.


46 Editorial, A new Juvenile Court System needed, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Jan.17, 1935, at 14.

47 Editorial, A Connecticut Juvenile Court, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, May 25, 1937,at 12.

48 id.49 id.; Final Action On Juvenile Courts today–Protests Against transfer of

Funds for neglected Children Cause Senate to Postpone Vote, HARtFoRD CoURAnt,June 7, 1939, at 1. As indicated below, the 1939 bill failed.

In 1940, the Legislative Council met again to find fund-

ing for the bill and it was introduced at the 1941 session of

the General Assembly. At the Judiciary Committee, early

in the session, a “row” broke out between two legislators,

Joseph P. Cooney, a Democratic representative from

Hartford, and Stanley P. Mead, a Republican representative

from new Canaan.50 When Mead interrupted Cooney, who

was questioning a witness, Attorney Frances Roth,51 about

providing psychiatric services to the court, Cooney cuttingly

remarked that he would now address his questions to Mead.

Mead told him to go ahead and do so.52

A ground for this acrimony was over the number of

judges to be appointed. Some committee members favored

five judges, while others favored three. Mead declared that

it was mandatory that the legislature resolve this bi-yearly

issue of the juvenile court, and he would vote for three

judges, if that would ensure passage. Another stumbling

block was whether the current probation officers were to be

retained under the new legislation.

the bill was passed on the final day of the session, min-

utes before adjournment. Under the bill, there were to be

three judges appointed by the governor, each receiving a

salary of $7500. An appeal would lie to the Superior Court

from the juvenile court’s decisions. the “experimental”

Fairfield and Windham courts were abolished. the effective

date of the bill was set as January 1, 1942.53


50 Robert D. Byrnes, Mead takes Floor in row with Cooney, HARtFoRD

CoURAnt, Mar. 13, 1941 at 1. 51 Frances Roth was the first female prosecutor in Connecticut, serving in the

new Haven Police Court. She became an expert in juvenile delinquency, and after1941served as an administrator of the juvenile court for the judicial branch. In agovernmental capacity, she established a program in new Haven to train thereturning veterans of World War II to become chefs; her training program evolvedinto the Culinary Institute of America. on August 19, 1940, she wrote a report onthe juvenile court statistics in the “small courts” of the state from 1939 to 1940. Shewas commissioned to write the report by the commissioner of welfare, Robert J.Smith. the report was sent to the Legislative Council and to Chief Justice Maltbie.She sent a similar report to Governor Raymond Baldwin on July 30, 1940. Co-author Henry S. Cohn has written an essay on Roth that will be published in May2012 in the Connecticut Lawyer, a publication of the Connecticut Bar Association.

52 Mead became a juvenile judge in 1943. He joined the CPA in 1943 and waslisted as a vice president for the agency representing Fairfield County. See AnnUAL

REPoRt oF tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon ASSoCIAtIon 1940 at 5. 53 P.A. 1941 ch. 282.

the dates of adoption by the House of Representatives

and the Senate, and the reasons that everything was last-

minute, show how close the bill came to failing again. the

Judiciary Committee approved the bill on Saturday night,

May 31, 1941. the House approved on Monday, June 2, but

the Senate added a provision freezing all appointments of

new probation officers; this was rejected by the House later

that day. A disagreement committee was convened; the bill

was eventually passed with a provision retaining the cur-

rent probation officers and allowing the appointment of

part-time officers, but halting the appointment of new full-

time probation officers.

on December 20, 1941, Governor Hurley, a Democrat,

appointed three attorneys to the post of juvenile judge cre-

ated by the legislation.54 thomas D. Gill was appointed for

the Hartford District, Max Spelke for the Fairfield District,

and Fred D. Faulkner for the new Haven District. In mak-

ing the appointments, Governor Hurley declared that the

new court was “a far-reaching step in the direction of social

progress.”55 the statewide juvenile court was more a “social

clinic” than a court of law. It was intended to make “good

and useful citizens out of those unfortunate youngsters”

who came before the court. Judges were chosen who under-

stood the role of the court.56

In 1943, with Republican Raymond Baldwin once again

elected governor, Judge Spelke was replaced by new

Canaan representative Stanley P. Mead, the Republican

floor leader in the Senate.57 the Hartford Courant com-

mented that while politically Baldwin could have replaced

all three judges that had been appointed by his predecessor,

he chose only to replace Judge Spelke. Each judge appoint-

ed had an excellent reputation, especially Judge Gill, and

Governor Baldwin showed true bipartisanship.58


54 Gill named to Juvenile Court Bench, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Dec. 21, 1941 atC8. See also Carmody, supra note 5, at 39-46.

55 id.56 id.57 Juvenile Court Judges, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Apr. 25, 1943, at A2.58 id.

II. tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon ASSoCIAtIon

AnD ItS LEADERSHIP

the CPA had played a significant role in the passage ofthe 1941 Juvenile Court Act as the key citizen lobbyinggroup pressing the legislature for adoption. the agency hadbeen in existence for seven decades, since January 1875.59

Its history illuminates a synergy with state government thathas been a continuous source of productive change.

the CPA was probably the sixth such prison reformagency organized in the United States, following thePhiladelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of PublicPrisons (1877), the Boston Prison Discipline Society (1825),the new York Prison Association (1844), and the Marylandand Delaware Prison Associations (ca. 1860s).60 Among themotivating forces that inspired their formation was a mas-sive, mid-century prison reform movement that stretchedbeyond American shores to Europe as well.

the national Prison Association (nPA) was formed in1870 in Cincinnati, ohio, with then ohio GovernorRutherford B. Hayes as the Convenor. the nPA was theprogenitor of the current American CorrectionalAssociation. Governor Hayes was elected subsequently thenineteenth president of the United States, winning one ofthe most contested elections in history in 1876. After hispresidential term, he returned to serve as president of thenPA from 1884 to 1893 and was eulogized as a unique andindefatigable proponent of prison and jail reform.

Hayes was one of the few American political leaders whoviewed progressive reform of the criminal justice system fromtwo perspectives: the rehabilitation of adult offenders andcrime prevention by educating youth in the value of work.there has rarely been any political gain in being concernedabout the welfare and treatment of law-breakers. the latenineteenth century was one of those exceptional times.


59 See generally Community Partners in Action, Who We Are, found athttp://www.cpa-ct.org/about-us.php.

60 the founding dates of similar organizations are difficult to trace in statessuch as ohio and Illinois, for example, which were active in the nineteenth centu-ry reform movement. the likelihood that the CPA is the sixth in line is high untilotherwise disproven.

the formation of the CPA was the culmination of several

years of meetings and conversations between Connecticut’s

judiciary, educators and clergy, some of whom had been in

attendance when the nPA was formed. the founders of the

CPA included Judge Heman H. Barbour of Hartford’s Probate

Court, Dr. Joseph Cummings of Middletown, the President of

Wesleyan University, and Reverend noah Porter of new

Haven, President of Yale University.61 the group was incor-

porated as the Prisoners’ Friends Corporation in March 1975

and was known as “the Friends of Prisoners’ Society.”62 In

June 1976, the name of the organization was changed to the

Connecticut Prison Association, to symbolize its connection

with the national Prison Association.63 Dr. Barbour served

as the first president of the Prisoners’ Friends Corporation for

three months until ill health made it necessary to resign. Dr.

Cummings served as the second president of the corporation

for the balance of 1875.

Among the early supporters of the CPA was another pro-

bate judge, Francis Wayland, whose father had been presi-

dent of Brown University in Rhode Island. Wayland was

politically connected, having served as Lieutenant Governor

of Connecticut in 1869-70. He became the first dean of the

Yale Law School in 1873 and agreed to be the leader of the

CPA in 1876. He served in both positions for over thirty

years. the CPA’s initial secretary or agent was a Civil War

veteran from Bethel, Connecticut, named John taylor, who

signed on in March 1875. In January 1876, under Wayland’s

urging, the organization changed its name to the

Connecticut Prison Association and Wayland became the

first to lead the agency under the new name.64 Wayland died


61 See AnnUAL REPoRt AnD YEAR BooK oF tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon

ASSoCIAtIon 1934-35 at 42-43. 62 the Prisoners Friend's Corporation, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Feb. 17, 1875;

Prison reform Corporation, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Mar. 8, 1876. 63 See AnnUAL REPoRt AnD YEAR BooK oF tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon

ASSoCIAtIon 1934-35 at 44. 64 See generally AnnUAL REPoRt AnD YEAR BooK oF tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon

ASSoCIAtIon 1934-35 at 44-45. In 1997, the agency changed its name to“Community Partners in Action,” retaining the acronym CPA. See CommunityPartners in Action, Who We Are, found at http://www.cpa-ct.org/about-us.php.

of natural causes in 1904. taylor died by suicide in 1909.65

Prison reform in Connecticut attracted many to the

CPA’s goals. Its objectives, similar to the other agencies

being formed at that time, were simple and broad: to bene-

fit society by the reformation of criminals; to assist prison-

ers in the work of self-reform; to promote reformatory sys-

tems of prison management; to aid discharged convicts in

living honorably; to co-operate in the repression of crime.

Since the organization was given a state stipend from its

inception, and its initial office was located on the second

floor of the state capitol building, the CPA functioned as a

quasi-public organization. It had an independent board of

directors but it enjoyed the unofficial status of a state

agency. It was the major proponent of Connecticut’s inde-

terminate sentence law, passed in 1901, and of the statutes

establishing the state’s first probation system in 1903,

which as mentioned, included some provisions for juvenile

offenders. the CPA supervised the juvenile probation offi-

cers until 1942 and the adult probation officers until 1955,

when a state-wide probation system was put into effect.66

In 1904, William B. Bailey, an economist at Yale for over

twenty-five years, became the second president of the


65 John taylor took his own life using his service revolver for reasonsunknown. His suicide was the second in the State Capitol Building. JohnWadhams, a clerk in the Comptroller’s office, had hung himself in 1902. Secretarytaylor Kills Himself, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, oct. 7, 1909, at 14.

66 See generally AnnUAL REPoRt AnD YEAR BooK oF tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon

ASSoCIAtIon 1934-35. A section of the Annual report and year Book entitled: “ForSixty Years the Prisoners’ First Friend: A Brief History of the Connecticut PrisonAssociation Upon its Sixtieth Anniversary,” written by the organization’sSecretary and Agent, William D. Barnes, states that “[i]n the early days the officeof the Corporation was in Room 18 at 373 Asylum Street, until removed to Room45, in the State House, in December 1879.” id. at 44. Later in the summary, thearrangements for an annual appropriation of a stipend from the State treasury isdescribed, to provide the agency’s independent Board to operate its rehabilitativeprograms. id. the section goes on to describe the agency’s work in advocating forthe Indeterminate Sentence law of 1901, written by the Honorable SimeonBaldwin in consultation with members of the CPA, and their support of it for fifty-six years. id. at 45. Likewise, the agency’s work in promoting and then supervis-ing the first probation system in Connecticut, passed on May 22, 1903, whichincluded the separation of juvenile offenders from adult offenders. id. the AnnualReport and Year Book of 1934-35 also contains a radio broadcast of Chief JusticeWilliam M. Maltbie on Wednesday, September 18, 1935, which details Maltbie’ssupport of both innovations from the time he became the CPA president. id. at 5-9.

agency.67 Appointed by Governor Simeon Baldwin in 1913to head a committee to “investigate the need for aReformatory for Women,” Bailey had a very influentialgroup of women in Connecticut to assist him, including Dr.valeria H. Parker, a leading sociologist.68 In 1917, PublicAct 358 was passed establishing a “state farm for women.”69

It took another twelve years to obtain the funding, but theopening of the prison farm for women in 1929 left a lastinglegacy of persistence and compassion.

In the early 1930s, Chaplain Raymond Cunningham ofthe Seyms Street County Jail in Hartford assembled a smallcommittee to examine the perennially poor conditions in thejail.70 In 1932, William M. Maltbie joined the committee. Hewas then in his third year as chief justice of the ConnecticutSupreme Court of Errors. In one sense it was not a surprise,for Maltbie combined great probity and legal skill with anequally deep concern that social justice be realized in real lifesituations, not simply in the legal books. His wife, Mary,was a member of the state jail commission.71

Maltbie spoke out repeatedly in public forums to condemnthe lack of hygiene, constructive work and education in thejails. Above all, he deplored the fact that the jails did notseparate offenders by age, gender or criminal experience.72


67 AnnUAL REPoRt AnD YEAR BooK oF tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon ASSoCIAtIon

1934-35 at 46. 68 id. at 66-67. 69 id. at 68.70 See id. at 22-25. 71 Mary Maltbie was a member of five consecutive jail commissions (1932,

1934, 1936, 1938 and 1940), each of which urged the formation of a state jail farmand improved conditions in all ten of the county jails (two counties, Fairfield andnew London had two jails for a number of years). See JERoME DAvIS, REPoRt oF

tHE LEGISLAtIvE CoMMISSIon on JAILS, WItH A SPECIAL StUDY on tHE JAIL

PoPULAtIon oF ConnECtICUt (Dec. 3, 1934). Mrs. William M. Maltbie is listed asSecretary here and in the subsequent reports in 1936, 1938 and 1940.

72 See radio Broadcast of Chief Justice William M. Maltbie (Sept. 18, 1935),found in AnnUAL REPoRt AnD YEAR BooK oF tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon ASSoCIAtIon,1934-35 at 5-9. In his radio broadcast, Maltbie stated that: “Generally speaking,our jails are old, inadequate and badly adapted to give any proper treatment totheir inmates. the cells are often dark, poorly ventilated and too few, and resultin doubling up the inmates or giving them cots in the corridors. the usual toiletfacilities are merely buckets in the cells. there is no opportunity for segregation;the old and the young, the first offender and the habitual repeater, the clean andthe unclean, the good and the bad, are all mingled together in a conglomeratemass…[t]he sad conditions there can only be effectively cured by some drasticchange in the entire system…” id. at 6.

In 1933, Maltbie became a member of the CPA, along with

the rest of Cunningham’s committee, with the express intent

of forcing the agency to undertake jail reform immediately.

A full biography of Maltbie’s career has not yet been writ-

ten.73 He was elected to the legislature from Granby in

1913 and was appointed an assistant state’s attorney for

Hartford County in 1914, serving under Hugh M. Alcorn.

Alongside his state’s attorney position, Maltbie also joined

the staff of Governor Marcus H. Holcomb as executive sec-

retary in 1915.

Connecticut legal historians know that in 1917 Maltbie

became a Superior Court judge, in 1925, Justice of the

Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, and in 1930 chief jus-

tice, the youngest so appointed. the extent of Maltbie’s

community activity is less well known. While on the bench,

he worked with numerous private sector and religious

groups and spoke often on national and international

issues.74 the fact that he gave more time and energy to the

CPA in its criminal justice work than to any other endeavor

is almost unknown.

He served as a hands-on leader of the agency until his

death in 1961. During his tenure, the establishment of a

statewide Adult Probation system in 1955 capped twenty

years of intense advocacy by Maltbie and the CPA’s Board

of Directors among others. two other long-term goals that

Maltbie and the CPA had sought, of abolishing the county

system and placing the jails and prisons under a

Department of Correction, were realized in 1960 and 1967

respectively.


73 An excellent summary of the history of the Connecticut Supreme Court hasbeen written by Attorney Wesley Horton that contains an assessment of Maltbie’sjudicial career. See WESLEY W. HoRton, tHE HIStoRY oF tHE ConnECtICUt

SUPREME CoURt 143-62 (2008). Maltbie was cautious in changing existing prece-dent, and was a master of appellate procedure.

74 Roy Fleischer, He tempers Justice with Liberalism, HARtFoRD CoURAnt,Aug. 20, 1939, at SM5. Maltbie also served as president of the Charter oakCouncil of Boy Scouts of America, as a committee member of the YMCA, as presi-dent of the Greater Hartford Federation of Churches, and as a member of the com-mittee drafting the constitution of the newly formed United Church of Christdenomination in 1957. See Obituary Sketch of William M. Maltbie, ConnecticutState Library, located at www.cslib.org/memorials/maltbie.htm.

Much of Maltbie’s involvement in the private sector is

noteworthy, but not unusual for members of the judicial

branch of government. there have been publicly active

jurists in every era. But the higher the position in the judi-

ciary, the more likely it has been for Connecticut judges to

protect their privacy and limit public involvement. there is

often a concern that a matter that the judge is involved in

might end up in court.

Maltbie’s deep involvement in street-level criminal justice

advocacy went far beyond the norm. It was the kind of multi-

level activity that, for good or ill, is no longer possible today

with concerns about “conflict of interest.” In any event, there

is only one recorded objection to Maltbie’s involvement dur-

ing his long and productive role with the CPA.75

Maltbie drew a number of his friends and colleagues to

the CPA. their names would be prominent in Connecticut’s

legal world for the rest of the century. Attorney Pomeroy

Day, for example, was enlisted to oversee the financial

health of the agency. other members of the Connecticut

Bar such as Judge Richard t. Steele, Arthur Shipman, Esq.,

and William S. Locke, Esq., were brought on the board to

help revise the CPA’s constitution. State’s Attorney H.

Meade Alcorn became chair of the agency’s Committee on

Probation. A few years later, thomas D. Gill, Esq., was

enlisted to help make the needed changes in probation for

juveniles. Former Police Court Judge Abraham Ribicoff was

recruited in 1943 to lead the agency’s study of alcohol’s rela-

tionship to crime in partnership with Yale University. the

common bond was the presence of Chief Justice Maltbie and


75 In a special report attached to the 1943 CPA Annual Meeting Proceedings,the history of the previous ten years is reviewed. See AnnUAL REPoRt oF tHE

ConnECtICUt PRISon ASSoCIAtIon 54 (Mar. 1945) (reviewing the history of the pre-vious ten years’ worth of annual meetings). William Baxter, who was released asSecretary and Agent of the CPA when Maltbie became president, is said to haveobjected strongly to the role of the Chief Justice in his removal as a conflict of inter-est. Lewis Fox and others dismissed the protest without foundation. id. at 55.the Hartford Courant on August 2, 1934, contained Maltbie’s statement on whyBaxter was ousted: “[I]t became obvious . . . that the work of the association couldnot be carried on . . . unless there was a change in personnel as regards the secre-tary and field agent.” Maltbie tells Why Baxter Was Dropped, HARtFoRD CoURAnt,Aug. 2, 1934, at 12.

the assumption of the CPA was a viable and effective force

for reform in criminal justice.

Perhaps most influential of all Maltbie’s colleagues was

Lewis Fox, a prominent Hartford attorney who gained a

well-deserved reputation for his work in the field of public

education. Fox became a member of the CPA and served as

the chair of the executive committee from 1933 to 1976.

Recognized as a generous and thoughtful philanthropist,

Fox expressed the “moral voice” of the CPA during his long

years on the Board of Directors. At his death, Fox was

described as “blind to all racial, ethnic, political and reli-

gious differences.”76 He represented the CPA’s application

of practical, non-ideological religious conviction to the pur-

suit of a humane criminal justice system; a system that val-

ued each individual, and sought to protect both adults and

juveniles from abuse.

III. tHE RoLE oF tHE CPA In tHE CREAtIon oF tHE

ConnECtICUt JUvEnILE CoURt

the CPA had been at the forefront of passage of juvenile

court legislation from the 1920s onward. At the Judiciary

Committee in 1941, Lewis Fox testified in favor of the bill as

adopted. the Hartford Courant stated that he gave “the

chief presentation” for adoption of a statewide juvenile

court, as a crime prevention measure.77 two of the three

judges initially appointed were tied to the CPA. Hartford

Juvenile Court judge thomas D. Gill was recommended for

the position by Chief Justice Maltbie and Attorney Lewis

Fox and “has been associated with the chief justice and Mr.

Fox as a director of the [CPA], which, with the Connecticut

Probation Association, has long been advocating a statewide


76 Lewis Fox Dies; educator, Lawyer, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Sept. 9, 1976, at 1.Among his many contributions, Fox established the Anna M. Fulling Chaplaincyprogram at the Hartford Hospital in memory of his foster mother, and served onthe Hartford Board of Education for thirty-seven years. He also established theJacob L. Fox scholarship program in memory of his father. the scholarships con-tinue to be awarded to today’s needy Hartford college-bound students.

77 Robert D. Byrnes, Mead takes Floor in row with Cooney, HARtFoRD

CoURAnt, Mar. 13, 1941, at 2.

juvenile court and probation system for this state.”78

Stamford Judge Spelke was also a member of the CPA.79

the CPA annual reports reference the juvenile court leg-

islation. In 1941, the annual report related that in 1940 the

agency staff continued to study ways in which juvenile delin-

quency was handled and considered ways to improve the

chances of leading children and youth away from crime.80

In September 1940, the fifth United States conference on

probation, parole and crime prevention met in Hartford with

CPA staff and members of the board of directors in atten-

dance. William Barnes, CPA executive director, called juve-

nile delinquency “the most preventive work of all.”81 the

CPA would undertake to reach this societal problem at its

source. the CPA intended to “bring together on a state-wide

basis all socially minded individuals and character building

agencies, thereby bringing forces to bear at the very earliest

moment in lives that might otherwise become offenders.”82

Lewis Fox wrote in the 1942 CPA Annual Report: “It is

gratifying to note that a state juvenile court system has

been established. this law, if properly administered, by

men of training and singleness of purpose, should aid great-

ly in the reduction of juvenile delinquency” before young

men and women enter a path of crime.83

Chief Justice Maltbie was also involved with juvenile

delinquency issues both as president of the CPA and in his

court decisions. on February 28, 1938, he addressed the

annual dinner of Phi Beta Kappa at Wesleyan University.84


78 Gill named to Juvenile Bench, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Dec. 21, 1941 at C8. 79 id.80 See AnnUAL REPoRt oF tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon ASSoCIAtIon 18 (Jan. 1941). 81 See AnnUAL REPoRt oF tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon ASSoCIAtIon 24 (Mar.

1945). Barnes stated: “this, I think, is the major work of the future: namely, toidentify, through the schools, the 2% of mal-adjusted children from 8 to 12 years ofage; after careful case-studies and formulation of plans, to bring together on astate-wide basis all socially minded individuals and character building agencies,thereby bringing preventive forces to bear at the very earliest moment in lives thatmight otherwise become offenders.” id. at 24.

82 AnnUAL REPoRt oF tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon ASSoCIAtIon 24 (Jan. 1941).83 AnnUAL REPoRt oF tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon ASSoCIAtIon 13 (Jan. 1942). 84 See William M. Maltbie, the Function of Courts in a Democracy, 13 Conn.

B.J. 82 (1939).

Posing the question “What is Justice,” he envisioned a judge

who understood that justice required paying attention to the

root causes of crime.

Courts must, if they are to be practicable and law is to haveany certainty, deal only with the proximate, to the exclu-sion of the remote, cause; yet it is in the consideration of thelatter that true justice often must be found. Is it just totreat the boy who comes of parents of weak mind and evildeed, who is reared amid noisome surroundings, is trainedfrom his youth upwards to treat all authority as an enemy,to be shunned, or if need be, fought, with no more consider-ation than is to be given the lad whose birth and upbring-ing should have brought to his aid all that which is best ininheritance and environment? Yet too often it is the formerand not the latter who feels the heavier hand of the law.85

In September 1940, the Chief Justice testified before a

hearing of the Legislative Council considering the “perenni-

al legislative problem” of the juvenile court.86 He recognized

that a court for juveniles must be distinguished from adult

proceedings, telling the Council that “[i]f you are going to

have a statewide system, have a commissioner system, not

a juvenile court system, for under our law no boy or girl

under 16 years old can be classed as a criminal.”87 Chief

Justice Maltbie also put Attorney Frances Roth on his staff

to carry on “special work” in the juvenile area.88 Attorney

Roth was later made responsible for supervising the united

juvenile court.89

In the 1936 Annual Report of the CPA, Lewis Fox praised

the chief justice for his decision in State v. elbert.90 elbert

remains, even after taking into account the developments in

juvenile law in the 1960s, the most important delinquency

case decided in Connecticut. Wiley Elbert was described in

the trial court’s findings (in the terminology of the day) as a


85 id. at 83. 86 Delinquency Proposal is Put Forth, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Sept. 14, 1940.87 id.88 Diligence Asked of Parents to Cut Child Delinquency, HARtFoRD CoURAnt,

nov. 17, 1941, at 18. 89 19 Appointed to Head War on Disease, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, oct. 16, 1942, at 6. 90 115 Conn. 589, 162 A. 769 (1932). See AnnUAL REPoRt AnD YEAR BooK oF

tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon ASSoCIAtIon 1934-35 at 17.

“negro . . . born in Birmingham, Alabama.”91 the state’s

attorney, Lawrence Lewis, charged that on January 23,

1932, just two months before his sixteenth birthday, Elbert

had been burglarizing residences in Waterbury. Gaining

access through a kitchen window at seven in the morning,

he entered the home of Lewis J. Hart, spotted a “white”

twenty-three year old housekeeper, threatened her with a

knife and sexually assaulted her. He fled at 7:15 AM and

was quickly apprehended.92

Elbert was immediately tried in the Waterbury Superior

Court without a jury, convicted and sentenced to a term of

ten years imprisonment as an adult. the judge stayed the

sentence for two months, so that he would be sent to the

Cheshire Reformatory, an institution for young men, rather

than sending him to the Meriden School for Boys.

Elbert’s public defender, William Gager, had sought to

quash the information and later to block imposition of the

sentence on the ground that only the juvenile court had

jurisdiction. the trial judge denied Gager’s motions on the

ground that the legislature could not in the 1921 juvenile

court act provide for exclusive juvenile court jurisdiction.

Such exclusivity, if allowed, would amount to an invasion of

the powers of the judiciary by the legislative branch and

was unconstitutional. Rather, concurrent jurisdiction in

adult court existed over such crimes as Elbert had allegedly

committed.93 According to the Hartford Courant, the “fore-

most authority” in Connecticut on juvenile justice, former

Judge George H. Day, protested this ruling as “punching a

hole” through the present juvenile delinquency system.94

Gager took an appeal, noting that Elbert had been

arrested and forced to enter a plea on the same day with his

motion to quash argued at 5:00 PM. In the Supreme Court,


91 State v. elbert, Supreme Court of Errors Records and Briefs at 15 (Aprilterm 1932), Finding #1 (Mar. 24, 1932, Peasley, J.)

92 id. See also Brief of State-Appellee at 1, State v. elbert (June 1932).93 id. See also State v. elbert, Supreme Court of Errors Records and Briefs at

6, Memorandum of Decision on Motion on Demurrer to the Plea to the Jurisdiction(Feb. 9, 1932, Peasley, J.).

94 elbert Case is Juvenile Court threat, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, Mar. 20, 1932, at A6.

Gager argued that the legislature constitutionally could pro-

vide for exclusive jurisdiction in the juvenile court, due to

the “tender years” of the child. He further protested the

delaying of Elbert’s sentence so that he would qualify for

adult imprisonment. the state’s attorney replied that the

exclusivity provision was unconstitutional and there was

concurrent jurisdiction in adult court, except for trivial

offenses.95

Chief Justice Maltbie reversed for a unanimous Supreme

Court, stating that the motion to quash should have been

granted. the delay of the sentence until Elbert reached six-

teen was not proper. And the other alternative of sending a

juvenile on conviction at once to an adult prison or imposing

probation did not make sense. While Elbert’s actions did

not “accord with the general feeling of mankind,” and were

“heinous,”96 the General Assembly had declared that offens-

es by a juvenile were not crimes, and it had the authority to

establish the age of a crime, as an element of the crime.

Cinque had upheld the legislative determination.97 “It nec-

essarily follows that proceedings against any child within

the class of delinquents as defined by the Act must, in the

first instance at least, be taken in the Juvenile Court and

until that court has acted the Superior Court can have no

jurisdiction.”98

Ultimately the charges against Elbert were pursued in

juvenile court, he was again sentenced, and after a few days

at the School for Boys, was transferred to Cheshire.99 the

Hartford Courant praised the Maltbie decision.100 It was

true that under Supreme Court’s approach, juveniles like

Elbert would eventually be sent to Cheshire, but “the prin-

ciple will be very different” from the approach adopted by

the Superior Court.101 It was just after the elbert decision


95 id. See also Brief of State-Appellee at 4-5, State v. elbert (June 1932).96 elbert, 115 Conn. at 596.97 id. at 592 (citing Cinque v. Boyd, 99 Conn. 70, 121 A. 678 (1923)).98 id. at 599. 99 Wiley elbert Sent Back to Cheshire, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, nov. 1, 1932, at 8.100 High Court Strengthens Juvenile Act, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, oct. 26, 1932, at 1. 101 Editorial, the Juvenile Courts Strengthened, HARtFoRD CoURAnt, nov. 1,

1932, at 14.

that Chief Justice Maltbie formally joined the CPA as a

member of the Cunningham committee.102

Iv. ConCLUSIon

In the period from 1903 to the creation of the state-wide

juvenile court in 1941, the principles that govern delinquen-

cy in Connecticut were formulated. then the United States

Supreme Court decided in re Gault,103 seen by some as ush-

ering in a “new era” of delinquency law.104 the Supreme

Court held that Gault’s due process rights were violated by

Arizona’s lack of procedural safeguards for juveniles. the

outcome for Gault in the Arizona courts was especially cruel

as he was sent to a state industrial school for six years for

making lewd telephone calls, an offense under similar cir-

cumstances that would result in a six-month term for an

adult. Under the Gault holding, the state must provide notice

of charges, right to counsel, protection against self-incrimina-

tion, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.

the attorneys in Cinque had sought similar rights many

years before, and due to Gault, some rights were to be pro-

vided to those children facing state-sanctioned penalties.

on the other hand, any observation of the Superior Court

for Juvenile Matters shows that the state courts have never

truly abandoned the basic principles, hammered out between

1903 and 1941. A delinquency proceeding is not, as a recent

case noted, analogous to the prosecution of an adult

arrestee.105 the footnotes in State v. Heinemann,106 recog-


102 See AnnUAL REPoRt oF tHE ConnECtICUt PRISon ASSoCIAtIon 54 (Mar.1945).

103 387 U.S. 1 (1967).104 See, e.g., BARRY C. FELD, BAD KIDS: RACE AnD tHE tRAnSFoRMAtIon oF tHE

JUvEnILE CoURt (1999). Justice Stewart in dissent in Gault worried about themajority’s imposition of “inflexible restrictions” of the Constitution on the juvenilecourts. See 387 U.S. at 79 (Stewart, J., dissenting). only recently, an author stat-ed that, post-1967, the juvenile court’s original mission, as envisioned by JudgeLindsey in the early twentieth century, has been obscured: what does occur, accord-ing to that author, resembles a “junior varsity criminal trial.” See Rachel Aviv, noremorse, nEW YoRKER 54, 57 (Jan. 2, 2012). the authors of this article do notbelieve that Aviv’s observations hold true for Connecticut’s delinquency court.

105 in re Jan Carlos D., 297 Conn. 16, 23, 997 A.2d 471 (2010). See also Statev. Angel C., 245 Conn. 93, 103, 715 A.2d 652 (1998) (noting the privilege of beinggiven juvenile status).

106 282 Conn. 281, 297, 920 A.2d 278 (2007).

nize the physiological differences between the adult and juve-

nile brain.

the Superior Court delinquency proceedings are more

informal and cautious, taking into account medical, sociolog-

ical, and psychiatric factors not always considered in adult

court. Juvenile probation services are immediately available

to the child. Indeed the “Raise the Age” campaign in

Connecticut was based on the idea that a “better result” for

sixteen and seventeen-year olds would come about in juve-

nile proceedings – even better than the “youthful offender”

program in place in the geographical area courts.107

the ultimate conclusion for Connecticut is that the

reformers of the first half of the 20th Century, with the

addition of certain constitutional safeguards, have tri-

umphed; the CPA too may look on with pride.


107 See generally A Broken System, found at http://www.raisethagect.org/3narr1.html.

The Founding of the Connecticut Delinquency Court 1903 - 1941

Documents

Transcript of The Founding of the Connecticut Delinquency Court 1903 - 1941