The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1882-01-11
crMr-WEEKLY MINER.
.,..,,-A Ever, wes:s:s.y sss ~ss~'.
P~s"" sjay A~SosDxs,
by THE
Nine, Publishing Company.
opovs, 5: s.: {: {: 4. Business 1aaaesu
yEEMS-BY NAIL:
TEI,EGRAMS
Of Davidge's Argu-
meut.

Continuation Of Davidge's Argu
ment.
ru,r,.;o Jan. 7.-Davidgc read anC
y. y elaborated the prayer Of the govern
nm, u:.i, ask the Judge to- INSTRUCT
H.. inrv tl.a, if the prisoner knew at thu
4 ,;ne q. the shooting the difference ht,
tween ri..ht and wrong he WIS ut tina,
time safe ami responsible. Davidge
with the prayer in his hand, said, in
low but distinct tones and measured
LANGUAGE. that they consisted first of the
Above definition Of sanity; second, Of the
,I..!ara,iun that ifthc prisoner possessed
,LiIity 10 80 distinguish between right
and wrnn.. u" irresistible passion or
m,n,!sr, nn uncomfortable desire. M
neral .a.nr,vitv would excuse his act.
Third. a llrcla:a ion that the stan lard 0r
iucnity must be that Of law; fourth.
That no inability to distinguish between
/ right and wrong being present, the priS-
,n,r would not bt exc lsetl. Davislge
.i,oa-',; ih: prayers of the defense bear
in. un t,, points contained in the pray-
,r. rf III" prosecution ought not t. I've en-
'r1ainrl for i mnlnent. He said that
Tie law drew = line Of responsibility for
crime somewhere. 1t had not l,et.n fully
Defined until the Judges Of England Gf
ISIS, Il. the re'.IcSt y: the House al
Ior,ls, laid down Il legal rule defining
n~,nr.i!.;!i,y. This rule Was the gMnl
I'D ri.Iit and wrong st-the rule If
..,lnn,"'i ..l.Sr. There We're infinite d.
.n1-> n' i.i'"l'i...nc,'. Think Of the H.
.'.:ri""~ vi.'mn M' this prisoner on one
l,ani :.nr! t:,i> a~~:.:~in "n the other.
The law .iraw: no lflc between low de-
.rv~ -: intel ...Ecc on the one hand
and the ;::::i,r-, "n the other in respect
u ,!r responsibility Of crime. This
lr,onrr has! keen portrait rs
an in:i,r.i!r until he went up-
r|rn -. sand ard tore himself into
>i-r;,- ai,, atoms. \ man might I've
'.~',':a: a,n might even t~. partially
i...aE": ,ut if he arose to the point Of
:ntri;i.:. nee. which enabled him to
tmv III, difference between right and
wron". ana that what he WAS doing !
Nas wong, then II" Vas Responsible for !
TTrn:.
i:;i.ly'. then stated the ,,lagllatln,
r..-. Five '.':tSt,oi,S on the subject Of /!
ln>ri:y had been submitted to the
Iri.," 81 'f.nylan,l. Three Of these |
In.~iionS ha.! y direct hcaring on this
'as". The first question was aS I" ti,.
n~i"''' :",ii:.s- "f u person for :tn act,
Shtn i. nc i;',. Of committing the az;
'c k'"r Il: W::* I.tiuE contrary to law,
NJ dri Ia" act complained Of with tn.
view Or under ,ir influence If an i'll
an 'r':>i"r If re'irc-~i'." a supposed
MUIR. orc: producing some supposed
':l':!.' T. i,c!it. The answer Of all the
H'i-".. ry':'dinG Chief Justice Mall.
~. day w"r, a. the opinion that, not
.'';>".ii.nc the party accused did the
~ with ~" view under the influence
i an in-:,ii' .itlu-inn If re(lr.ssilg
''i'ir >uir',"' ;',Wry. ar Of producing
''Ie :ila'~r! jn,!,!;c i"nrfit. he was
iF'r'!,!">-, ,:!:i:%hah'' according t,
u ha::ir'.n' :!,- crime committed, il hc
h.'A =. ::..' :.i.' 81; committing such !
''ir nr !, - ing contrary to law.
'i"'i H'i',l,.->,u The court in reply to
'a'.sc n">i'"r. ami contine.l lis aryu-
a"' I" IL" consideration oi tvo ui..S-
'".. t,rs. lie. definitions laid down
me r."''.' statistics Of murder and
:an, ,.;'".',',r under which. If the mo-
nr ~; "' nrl ,.r'vcn. he c,nten,icd the
IN w",'''i t. n'aiis!aughtcr. ScUni. +,
a?n.I"iij'''. T.; si;i~ cas-, Of the qll..-
~" %: H>H::''l,' d"uh, in 'uii- :
'F'"i, wiz g., plea uf insanity If
'"">'n, "A wa- ,''cn t.cir duty to ac ;Uit /:
':. .'':. 'n.> ..asI 40 discretion as to in F:
'"':: '.1r ti,'i"rn doctrine was that
"" ::'".> ;r.'l Il r,4ls"rahlc doubt If the ,
''"'!'t" ..'. =" ::>,ci a. the tine nf
,,,,:A = Ii. .r1 it wa> their duty IT, ,
-; j" mn j. il" -1r.i.y. Formerly tn" in {
-. ','' IA. Ia ,,rnvr.; 10y the defend :
!" -" '".'"iI' Any rc::>omu'.lc doubt. hv i
;, '','1i = ".t' ~!.'tr if
'''" 80. ;.',n H." doctrine had to I
49, i,'.'! ii or. ";>r in Nas<achu- {
a.: "h'.' ~ :',at il insanity was I
.., ." "'; -, So light ofcvi.lc,Ict. tn" y
M, '' >'.". .. acquitted. la; the /
M =; ''.'.' t't';:i.rr.i from that ground, {.
,','i "i' '"r"!." new held il that ii q
-. . f';' '.,t''r doubt nf the sanity Il
! . &c ';;>' L. is entitled to ac.luit- b
j. 49,! = led i'll this connection Il
i,';' O.. h'Hi.~ ~. the people. ;lst q
r,r, u! "ti'h the Judge in his ~
/, i; ",n: III every criminal proceed q
II; ,...' "a ws~ entertained Of the r.
r.D,. ''' ;:'''i e, the jury il bound I"
r..,,, ,,.!!... t. guilt; insanity IL in
tho therefore Il reasonable doubt
Vi, ,,I'''| - l!!r accused must ac-
,,r,.,a :'f"-'IIa!hiUm Of innocence Is >t
y. E',I E's i> NE ir, sumption If insan- Fl
!,s.,.' ".:rl ";!."r cases in further "
~, H. ~" h> position. He also quoted 81
9. Of d, '",''!un "r Chief Justice Cor I
il ,f%'.' % '"!'"''mc Court of the Dis "
ie!rl. '',:''''i;. in the case Of Albert u
ny h.i ~ w;!> there held that if the I'll
~ If ...;' r'as,'ia''ic du,I,t on theQues- h
:it ,hs ."':, they were hound to ac- N
will !" ""i>ei: i: l admit, said Resl, 81
!oar H"n"r's duty to tell the III