New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-02-05

society to return TO s;mpler habitsis, unfortunately
very doubtful for the complex habits OF the age are
themselves neither more nor less thah tue eheo' Va
adaptation to the environment, and since u Is no'
nr,bahIe that the latter Will change In the direction
- s;mnlio,ty. there seems very little hope that
society will have an opportunity TO recover ltsen
by reverting to less artificial modes of life
Psychological Medicine" contains good deai
Of careful writing and a mass OF statistics "h'en
would be the more available for being eohueIseu
and rearranged
DR.. Buckhams book, "Insarity CONSIDERED ID It's
Me5jco.Leral Relations deals as the title implies
mainly with the legal aspects Ct tie qaesuon' -
ACCOMPLISHED 10 other purpose this volume wou-u
nossess certain value for the complete Gemonstra-
ton it contains Of tie wild and hopeless maeoie
this whole su5ect is in. chapter is given TO az
stracts of leading judicial utteTances on INSANITY n
its legal aspects and il is made abundanty hahieS
that of the learned judges CLEO Weio
phenomenally ignorant of the sublect. foi 80
have nut on record the most contradictory auu VIZ
most widely divergent views. INSANITY "'0o i
10 the courts is nothing less than phah' ss'n"
A. one time il is this at another time 1t Is tha''
Now il is purely physical anon 1t IS as purely ll'n
tai Here it is responsible, there 1t is rrespoSioi
One indge tells a jury that medical expert o'r
dence is of the greatest Importance hhoVnoi
Judge declares that such evidence ought 10 carry
no weight at ALL OF course one prolific source Oh
this confusion consists in the contradictory theo-
rics held by medical men themselves. DR.. Buckham
proposes and we think judicOusly that the phy-
steal theory of insanity should be ac-
cepted as tho guide and standard in medical Jurls
prudence. The motive of this suggestion Is oo-
yous The physical theory of insanity Is inc only
one which admits of the kind of demonstration
which appeals to the average jury. "neu quos-
tions of the relations between mind and BODY are
introduced I'm court, nothing but perple1ity ~
likely TO ensue But il the main question Is
as to the effect of certain organic LESSONS
upon responsibility, it may be possible 10 nhu
courts and jurcs that will follow the reasoning
and comprehend it. Moreover, as Dr. bucAhain
forcibly observes the psychcal theory cannot prove
that the mind is diseased, for the suicient reason
that 1t is impossible to submit an unembodied MIND
IN scientific ANALYSIS. All that can be proved Is
that the body Is diseased and if in addition
authority and precedent are advanced to show that
lust such physical disease is liable to produce Just
snch q mental perversion or responsibility, then
the oround for a secure fabric of reasoning ana
inference will be secured. The definition OF IN
sanity offered by DR.. Buckham Is as follows
"a diseased or dsordercd condition, or malforna-
tion of the physical organs through which the nhu
receives impressions or manifests Its operations by
which the will and judgment are impaired and the
conduct rendered irrational" The natural corolary
TO this definition is next offered, as follows' IN
sanity being the result of physical disease, IL Is
matter Of fact to be determined by medicai experts
NOT matter of law to BIO decided by legal tests and
maxims" 1t is clear that some such rule Will have
TO he adopted eventually, for thus far insanity has
been not only stumbling block but cause of re-
proach to the courts throughout the civilized
world No doubt one reason for this mas
been the popular error that every medlcai
practitioner was equally competent to give evil
dence in cases Of mental disease. Nothing could be
further from the truth than this idea The medical
man who has not specially studied insanity Is no
moro competent to give expert testimony Oh the
subject than person without any medical educa-
tion Experts in insanity must be physicians VINO
have made speciality Of it, and 1t Is possible that II
such witnesses alone were allowed to testify as to
the plea of insanity, the confusion now complained
of would disappear, for DR.. Buckham states that all
the experts on insanity hold to the physical theory
Medical men who have but theoretical acquan-
lance with the subject are of course liable to hold
any kind of hypothesis and court and jury that
cannot distinguish between real knowledge and mere
guesswOrk in matter of this kind are very apt 10
conclude that all the medical witnesses are alike
untrustworthy. What is needed Is first, harmony
in the positions Of medical Witnesses and, second
uniformity IN the view OF the law. Inc latter mas
always manifested what looks like jealousy OF the
medical profession in this connection. 1t has In
sisted oni right to define insanity, and this insist
ance is plainly without Justification III reason and
belongs to d barbarous age. But whether the
physical OF the psychica the intermediate theory
be held the fact remains that no average jury can
be competent to determine questions which belong,
In any event. either to physical disease OF to mental
defect, neither of which subjects are within the
legitimate province Of jury.
DR.. Buckham has done well in keeping rigidly to
the main line of the subject he had marked out and
the result is very pregnant and suggestive vol
ume. which we trust may help toward practical
and creditable solution of problem which has
hithetto been treated with anything but good judg-
ment.