The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1881-12-08
A soUNn CHARGE.

For some days past much interest has
icentered on the trial of Mrs. Elizabeth
Coleman, of New York, charged with
the murder of Charles T. Coles, of Min
,er's theatre. in that city. The defense
was conducted on the insanity plea, and
the charge to the jury, of Chief Justice
Noah Davis, who presided at the trial,
seemed SO marked in its applicability TO
the Guiteau case, that the whispered ex-
clamation, "He is charging on the presi-
dents assassin" ran through the audi
ence, making. if possible, the attention
to the language of the Judge more alb
sorbIng than it had been before. The
chief justice said:
Insanity is usually spoken of both in
common anguage and in the books as a
defense to crime, but it Is no defense,
because where insanity, recognized by
law, exists there can be no crime to de-
.tend. An insane person is incapable of
crime. He is devoid both in morals and
In law of the elements essential 10 the
constitution of crime, and hence is an
object of pity and protection, and not
OF punishment Therefore, whenever
1t IS established That party accused
Of crime was At the time of its alleged
commission insane within the estab-
lished rules of criminal law, he is
entitled TO acQuittal on the ground
of innocence, because of his
incapacity to commit an offense.
However mOnstrous his physical act
may appear, both humanity and the law
revolt against the conviction and punish
ment of such person. But insanity is
u condition easily asserted, and some
times altogether too easily accepted.
Hence juries, while they should be care
full to see TO il that no really insane per
son is found guilty of crime, should be
equally careful that no guilty person
escapes under an ill-founded pretext of
insanity. 1t is important that iuries in
trials OF alleged crime should clearly I'M
derstand what insanity is within the es-
tablished rules of criminal law. With
out such rules the administration of
Justice in such cases would be dependent
upon the shifting caprices o0udges, or the
equally substantial passions or preju-
dlces of jurors. In this state the test Of
responsibility for criminal acts whsse
insanity Is asserted, is the capacity Of
the accused to distinguish between tight
and wrong at the time and with respect
to the act which is the subiectof inquiry
This rule is stated by the authorities in
different forms, but always ia the same
substance. In one case II was said the
inquiry is always brought down to q
single question of capacity to dis
tinguish between right and wrong at the
time the net was done In the most au.
thoritative of English cases II is said it
must be clearly proved that at the time
Of committing the Ofense the party &C
cused was lHbOring under such defect of
trna0hn from Aicaacn ~ mind 80,
know tho nature and quality of the act
he was dning, or if he did know it, that
he did not know he was doing what was
wrong. and in very late case
in our court of appeals the charge
IN that language was held to present the
law correctly to the jury.
So you Will see that In this case the
firing by the prisoner of the shot by
which the deceased was killed being
proved and admitted, the question
whether the act was criminal depends on
your finding, as q matter offact, whether,
at the time of doing the act, the prisoner
knew what she was doing, and that she
was doing wrong; or, in other words,
did she know that she was shooting the
deceased. and that such shooting was a
wrongful act? If she did know these
things her alleged insanity is not estab-
lished within the rules of the law, how
ever much you may be convinced that
she acted under intensest emotional OK
element, or however fully she believed.
she was justified in avenging her. own.
wrongs. or however much you may
think the deceased was deserving of pun
ishment. The doctrine that criminalac
may be excused upon the nstion of an
irresistible impulse To commit it, when
the offender has the ability to discover
his legal and moral duty in respect to ID, |
has no place in law. And there is no
form Of insanity known TO law as shield
for an act otherwise criminal, in which
the faculties are so disordered or derang-
ed that man, though he perceives the
moral quality of his acts is wrong, is
unable TO control them, and is urged by
some mysterious pressure to the COM
mission Of the act, the consequences of
which he anticipates and knows.
If the criminal law has been properly
interpreted by the able gentlemen quot
cd above, the pivotal question in all
cases where alleged insanity is SET up in
defense of crime is: Did the person doing