A State Farm for Alcoholics in Connecticut.

FRANK H. BARNES, M.D., STAMFORD.

The problem of how best to care for our inebriates is one of the great issues before us to-day. The laity, with a few members of the medical profession, have been struggling with this question for many years and very little has been accomplished toward solving the problem. The time has come for the medical profession in this state to make it a strong issue and present the legislature with statistics to show the great need for an institution to treat cases of alcoholism along scientific lines and establish a place where its victims can be taught to lead a regulated life which will enable them to withstand the temptation of giving their lives up to debauchery.

Inebriety has been on the increase at an alarming rate during the past few years and something must be done to stop its ravages. In order to get some statistics on this subject, letters were mailed to the judges of the city courts of the leading cities in the state asking them the following questions:

How many alcoholics were brought before you during the year 1910?

How many of these were put on probation?

How many were committed to jail?

How many were committed to reform institutions and with what results?

Do you believe a farm to which patients could be committed and required to work out of doors would help solve the problem of alcoholism?

Such letters were mailed to the sixteen largest cities of this state, viz., Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, Waterbury, Ansonia, Meriden, Danbury, New London, Putnam, Bristol, Stamford, Greenwich, South Norwalk, New Britain, Norwich and Middletown. Replies were received from all but the five H*

last named. It was very difficult to get statistics, as practically none of these city courts had any card system and such data could only be obtained by looking over the records of the various police departments. Some of the judges simply referred the matter to their police chief or the clerk of the court. The replies

to these letters read as follows:

Hartford, Conn. I regret that the illness of the probation officer of our court who has in charge the matters referred to by you in your recent favor has prevented my getting you the statistics you desire. I can say, however, in a general way that the great majority of the 4,000 cases tried each year in our court arise from the use of liquor. As the farm colony you refer to would be used principally for what we call "rounders," the number of alcoholics placed on probation would include few of those you are interested in. They are long past probation. They are without exception, or practically without, committed to jail as a protection to the community as well as themselves. We cannot commit to the reform institutions unless you include the Connecticut Hospital for the Insane and dipsomaniacs are usually taken to the probate court for commitment. I believe the farm colony to be the only reasonable way to care for these unfortunates. The present system is very expensive and accomplishes nothing more than getting the rounder off the street for a short time. Yours very truly, WALTER H. CLARK, Judge.

Bridgeport, Conn. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your favor of the Ist ult., and to advise you that I have referred the matter to the Clerk of the City Court for reply. Very truly yours, C. FOSTER, Judge.

Bridgeport, Conn. After consulting my docket with the Prosecuting Attorney, I have arrived at the conclusion that approximately from 1,200 to 1,400 cases of intoxication came before this court in 1910; 50 of which were old rounders and 350 of which were probated, nolled or had the execution of the judgment suspended. In all other cases fines and costs were paid or committed to jail.

It is the custom in this court to suspend the execution of the sentence or probate those before this court for the first time, and for this reason I would presume that there are about 300 who would respond to treatment. Very respectfully yours, GEO. R. BURNES, Cľk.

New Haven, Conn. Your inquiry regarding alcoholics coming before this City Court is received. During the year 1910, we had 2,526 cases of arrests for intoxication. Of course, you cannot call all of them alcoholics, that is in the class that would need treatment. I think we have in

New Haven about 100 cases of the strictly confirmed drunkard we oftentimes term the "old rounder." We probably have here about 200 more who would, under proper treatment, respond and the majority of them escape the confirmed habit.

I believe a state farm with proper care of these cases, including medical treatment and outdoor exercise, would save the state vast sums of money and make these practical dependents working factors in our society.

Respectfully, ALBERT MCC. MATHEWSON, Judge.

Waterbury, Conn. Your favor of February 1st to Judge of the City Court of Waterbury has been referred to me for reply. During the year 1910 there were 1,945 arrests in this city for intoxication; 673 prisoners were discharged by the Superintendent of Police before court. I might say that 99 per cent. of these were charged with intoxication. It is the custom of the Superintendent of Police to discharge a prisoner for the first offense. There were 283 commitments to the county jail, of which I would say that at least 200 were for intoxication. We have no way of getting at it exactly except by going over the books of the Superintendent of Police day by day. There were 159 commitments for the same offense to the workhouse. I would say that at least 150 were for intoxication. In the other cases before the court, if not committed to jail or to the workhouse, sentence was suspended or if fined they were placed in the custody of the probation officer. I might say that the probation officer is successful in collecting nearly all the fines imposed. Where they fail to report or pay they are again arrested and committed to jail, where they either pay their fine or work it out. There are no other institutions where prisoners charged with intoxication are committed other than the jail and workhouse. There are a great many offenders in this city who spend nine out of every ten months in jail. They are no sooner out than they are before the court in a day or two charged with the same offense, intoxication.

I do not think there is a cure for people of this class, and it is no secret that alcoholism furnishes at least 95 per cent. of the business of this court, either directly or indirectly.

If there is any other information you would furnish same. Yours very truly,

like, I would be pleased to JAS. A. PEASLEY, Clerk.

Ansonia, Conn. I regret to say that I cannot readily give you the data you request in your letter of the 1st inst. I will refer your letter to the clerk of the court and I am sure that he will give you what information he conveniently can.

It goes without saying the present method of dealing with this class of offenders is thoroughly unscientific so far as the criminal laws are concerned. Our probation system has helped in a measure to solve the problem, but usually, when successful it has been with the aid of a

suspended jail sentence. Only in rare cases is a less drastic method effective. But alcoholics should have a daily supervision and that no probation officer can give them. They need work and freedom from temptation; outdoor work would of course be the best. It would seem as if a farm colony would be a happy solution of the problem.

To make a success of such a method alcoholics should be committed under an indeterminate sentence, to be discharged only by the managers of the institution. A method such as is used in the case of commitments to the Connecticut School for Boys is what I have in mind.

You are investigating a very important subject; one which cannot but interest anyone who is constantly confronted with the problem.

Yours truly, GEO. C. BRYANT, Judge.

Meriden, Conn. Your letter of inquiry at hand; I will hand it to our chief for details as desired, as he has them at hand I think.

I am very emphatically in favor of a state farm for hopeless confirmed inebriates. During the past year I have put at least 150 persons on probation; this includes both sexes and all ages but a majority of cases which were occasioned by drink. Probation is all-sufficient for three-fourths at least of the drinkers, but there are confirmed drunkards who simply cannot get by a saloon for a series of weeks without getting drunk. At least eighty per cent. of my probationers make good; of course, there are transients that get picked up who cannot be released on probation, as I have learned by experience.

Some drunkards are probably hopeless; all would be benefited, some cured and the community be relieved as well as making for economy to the general public to have such a farm as you suggest. I have in mind one case of forty-five arrests, another of thirty-four, others of upwards of a dozen arrests for drunkenness. Helpless slaves, it is a reproach to our civilization to continually send such to jail, but society must be protected and there is no other course. Some would make model inmates once out of reach of liquor. Yours truly, FRANK S. FAY, Judge.

Danbury, Conn. Replying to yours of February 1st, I would say that the clerk informs me that an examination of the records shows that during the year 1910, 332 alcoholics were brought before me. Of these 184 were committed to jail and 25 placed on probation. None were committed to reform institutions. The remainder were either discharged or paid a small fine. It is difficult to say what the results were, although I think the probation matter is of benefit to some extent.

As to your suggestion of a farm where patients could be committed and required to work out of doors, I have no doubt it would help solve the problem. Whether it would cure the disease or not I have considerable doubt, because in so many cases the craving for liquor is such a disease