photo by Alice Lum |
It remarked that when the young criminals were brought “big-eyed
and trembling before the justice” they were met with “desolation ad decay.” “The air has a dusty smell. The atmosphere of the prison pen is very much
in evidence. An old woodshed and a new
strap would be far less depressing.”
The old Department of Public Charities Building served as the Children's Courthouse until 1916 -- photo Museum of the City of New York |
“Let sympathetic justice smile as kindly as he may,” said
the article, “the conditions are atrocious.
Upstairs the windows are barred.
In a gloomy, echoing hallway boys and girls, arranged indiscriminately,
there await their turn in court. The
health of even the big policeman is menaced.”
But the Tribune had good news to report. “And all this is to be changed! The Board of Alderman has just appropriated
the money required to enable Borough President McAneny to erect a model
children’s court, in 22d street, between Lexington and Third avenues.”
Already the City had commissioned architect Luther H. Lewis of the firm Crow, Lewis & Wickenhoefer to design an up-to-date
building. The budget for the impressive
new structure was set at $150,000—about $2.5 million today.
photo Museum of the City of New York |
The replacement structure was, indeed, necessary. At the time of the Tribune’s article the old
courthouse had fallen into miserable disrepair.
In the Justice’s Chambers, large sections of the plaster wall had fallen
away, leaving exposed lath. The
half-century old furniture was abused and the rooms were unclean.
The Sun, on January 7, 1912, echoed the Tribune’s sentiments. “The upstairs rooms, one for
boys and the other for girls, are bare and barren, dark and gloomy…There is
nothing for the child to do to take his mind off plotting further mischief if
he is a wild lad, or brooding over his trouble if he is a sensitive boy. The atmosphere of the prison pen is very much
in evidence.”
The New-York Tribune offered a sketch of some of "New York's Tiny Evil-doers" in 1915 (copyright expired) |
Before 1902 children accused of crimes were treated as
adults, with no regard for their age or family circumstances. With the establishment of the Children’s
Court in the old Department of Public Charities Building, the first step had
been taken in treating children as children.
By 1912 Justice Franklin C. Hoyt adjudicated 10,000 juvenile
cases a year from the old building, most brought by the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children. His case load included “grand larceny, highway robbery, burglary and petit
larceny.” Court records that year show,
by 21st century perspective, that the root of the problem in many cases
was the family environment.
One father, intoxicated in the courtroom, held a three-year
old girl and sobbed how he desired to reform so as to be permitted to care for
her. The girl’s mother was incarcerated
for drunkenness. Another woman, a German
immigrant with three children, four, six and eight years old, told the court that “her husband
has quit beating her now, at least he is more intermittent than he was, and
that he gave her out of his wages $1.50 last week, which shows he means to do
better.” The woman pleaded with the
justice that “she would like to keep on trying to keep the family together.”
Whatever the causes, the Children’s Court had to make decisions
on incorrigible little thieves and hooligans and the environment of the old
courthouse was an impediment. The
proposed new structure would “embody all the features that go to make up a
model building for the purpose,” said the Tribune. “The waiting rooms and courtrooms will be so
arranged as to give as little as possible a judicial air to the building, and so
far as possible the children will not be subjected to the gaze of the curious
onlooker.”
Rather than having the intimidating adult courtroom
appearance, the courtrooms would be designed more like conference rooms. When completed in January 1915 the new
four-story limestone building was stately and classical; a stark contrast to
its austere Victorian predecessor.
Above a rusticated base, a row of two-story Ionic engaged columns were
separated by festooned panels. The top
story sat behind a tidy stone cornice, creating the proportions and illusion of
a shorter structure.
photo by Alice Lum |
The concept of “short term commitment” was introduced. It maintained that young violators, especially first-time offenders, were better served by short terms in Training Schools than by incarceration in the city asylums.
Throughout the years the courtrooms would see a stream of
young offenders—pickpockets, gang members, thieves, fallen girls, and
truants. Authorities tended to group
the juveniles into three classes: those
first offenders who needed disciplining, those who required terms in
reformatories, and incorrigibles who were often involved in gangs or under the
influence of adult criminals. Shortly
after the new building opened, Justice Hoyt commented on the offenders. “It must be borne in mind that all this large
throng of 15,000 children [per year] are not delinquents. About one-half are neglected and are brought before
this court because their parents have sinned either actively or passively thus denying
them of that which should be the heritage of each and every child brought into
the world, namely, a normal and decent home.”
Hoyt told The Sun in March 1916, “The one thought which
permeates the whole administration of the Children’s Court is ‘What is best for
the child?’ It is, of course, axiomatic that what is best for the child is best
for the community.”
What was best for the child was often the new “probation
system”—by which youngsters were temporarily held, then kept under supervision
or observation to prevent falling back into bad practices or influences. The probation system also allowed the Court
to observe the situation at home. Court
clerk Dennis A. Lambert, in explaining the system to The Evening World in
August 1919, spoke of environmental influences.
“Mr. Lambert discards the theory that some children are just naturally
imps of Satan and take pleasure in killing babies, murdering old gentlemen,
holding up good citizens and plundering houses.
He insists they are just what environment makes them.”
The Children’s Courthouse was the venue for another socially
ground-breaking concept: female justices.
In December 1922 two candidates vied for the seat being vacated by
Justice Cornelius F. Collins, Anna Moskowitz Kross and Jean Norris. “Something more than the personal ambition of
the two women are at stake,” reported The Evening World on December 28, “for it
is felt that the strength of the woman movement in general is to be tested…The
time has now come, women politicians declare, for a woman lawyer to be seated
in a higher court than the City Magistrate’s.
The Children’s Court, they say, is a post for which women are especially
adapted and to which it is most appropriate that a women be appointed.”
The appointment would bring one of the women an enviable
salary of $10,000 per year.
Above the imposing bronze doors, the building's new name is announced -- photo by Alice Lum |
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI have a quick question about your blog, do you think you could e-mail me?
Brian