The subject of granting a parole to con- victs, independently of the exercise of the power of pardon, is the subject of an able report made to the American Bar Associa- tion, 1898, by Hon. J. Franklin Fort of Newark, N. J. Acts have been passed in Alabama, Cali- fornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin. Iowa, Vermont, Virginia, and West Vir- ginia have a system of conditional pardon which has a very similar operation. Mary- land has a statute which permits the trial court to parole any person convicted of a crime not capital, by which he is not sen- tenced, but is subject to recall for sentence at any time. Nearly all of these acts have been passed within the last five years. None of them extend to any person con- victed of murder in the first or second degree, and most of them are limited to persons serving a term for a first offence. In some states there is a further limitation to persons between the ages of 16 and 25 or 30 at the time of their conviction. The committee report that the most carefully considered statute is that of Indiana passed in 1897. The same committee reports on indeter- minate sentences, which it defines as "sen- tences imposed by the court without fixing a definite period of limitation or term of imprisonment, but which simply directs that the convict be imprisoned or placed in the custody of the prison authorities to be held for not less than the minimum nor longer than the maximum fixed by law for the offence for which the prisoner stands convicted." New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohic, and Indiana have passed such acts which have worked well in practice. They are mostly confined to prisoners who are first offenders and are between the ages of 16 and 30 years. The committee reported that it was not willing to give this system its unconditional approval, though it might prove successful in connection with the parole system provided the judge whosen- tenced the prisoner should fix a maximum term. Indeterminate sentences as defined by the committee have been sustained as constitutional in 43 Ohio 629; 148 Ill. 413; 167 id. 447; 49 N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 894; 167 Mass. 144. They have been held unconsti- tutional in 88 Mich. 249. The committee report that after careful investigation and correspondence with the executives of various states the system of paroling convicts has been beneficial. In England, by statute, a convict under- going a term of servitude may be set at large by a license granted by the home secretary, who may revoke the license at any time. It is subject to the conditions indorsed upon it, which generally are that the holder shall produce it when called upon to do so by a magistrate or police of- ficer, shall abstain from any violation of the law, shall not habitually associate with notoriously bad characters, and shall not lead an idle and vicious life without visible means of obtaining an honest livelihood. The holder is obliged to report his place of residence to the general officer of the dis- trict where he resides and report himself there once a month. When he removes from one district to another, he must no- tify his removal to the general officer of the old district and report his address to the general officer of the new district. If a licensed convict is indicted and convicted of any offence his license is forfeited there- by. When forfeited the convict is liable to undergo a term of penal servitude equal to the unexpired portion of his original term. See TICKET-OF-LEAVE; SENTENCE.