, 1870-11-14
MORE EMOTIONAL INSANITY

The emotional insanity " business las
had nnother example. A married man,
named Van HON, living in Indiana, either
did SANDER, or was reported to have slau-
dered, Miss Daughertr, Subsequently,,
brother Of the lady, Lieutenant Daugherly,
of the army, visited his family, and was
told Of the slander. He sought Van Horn,
and, without giving the latter any oppor-
tunity to explain or deny the slAndcr, shot
and killed him Dangherty Was tried, and,
pleading "emotionel insanity" the jury
acquitted him. The widow Van Horn was
in court q: tho time, and suddenly beoom-
ing insane" drew pistol and tried, ,-9,ut
failed, to shoot the murderer Of her
husband. Daughe.ty Was hurried
OF by his friends, and has
gone to Washington 10 report for duty.
No one believes that Daugherty waa in
sane; no one believes that he did not de-
libezately plan and execute the homicide
he committed. No one believes that Mrs.
Van Horn WAS insane, but had she killed
Dangher.y, she would have put in the same
pfea, and probably hare been acquitted in
like manner, !.
The Indiana jnIy has practically decided
that it is jnstidable in one mau to Kill
another man for SANDER, or supposed slan-
der, Of s;ster. II has been repeatedly de-
cided by other iuries to be justihable for a
husband to kill any man whom he suspects
of intimacy with his wife. Proof of the
alleged criminality is not required. Sus-
ricion il all that is w;anted In the act of
Mrs. Van Horn will be seen The natural out
growth of this disregard Of law and
justice Once break down the law to
shield murderer, and who can tell
where the end will be: This woman Was
robbed OF her husband, her entire lifo
hlishted, her children orphaned, by q man
who deliberately planned and exocutcd the
assassination OF her husband II tharcveDge
Of Daagherty was permissible, why not that
cf tho widow yam Horn From the indica-
tion already given, it is safe to assume that
shs will not forego her revenge with the
one failure, but will follow him 10 the
oatth's end, md finally kill him And why
not? II privnta revenge, If personal
eowardice shall ndopt assassination in lieu
Of legal remedies for alleged wrongs, why
may not assassination in turn he punished
with assassination? Can DaugheEty, who
violated all Law in killing Van Horn, hon.
estly claim tho. protection Of tho Law
against the avenging hand Of the widow Of
his victim? IT nm injured husbands right
to murder is to grow into Law, the right
OF the son OF widow OF the murdered man
to kill his assassin, being founded on muct
stronger natural REASONS, ought not To be
questioned. If the one thing be tolerated
why not the other? Indeed, il murder i
to bo justified in the one case, Why Is il
not right 10 encourage it in the other
Then, when worthless co#ardly Wzetcl
seeks glori6cation In tho murder OF Al
alleged invader Of his family circle
if NO legal punishment follow, it may ii
hut retributive jnstice for him to know
that the sens Of his victim are growing t
manhood with keen sense Of the horribl
crime against their father, and that in du
time they will tako his life. II the yendett
is to take the place of law, Who can pu
limits 10 it, It will descend from fathe
to son, and include lateral branches, unit
in time, as hns been frequently the cas-
in the Southern States, the peace Of who]
districts and counties will be disturbed b
the Rauguinary feuds Of families to whic
these quar1c1s have descended, togeths
3 with their hired and sympathizing part