Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1884-01-22

A new law OF UuTuer IS es'dohSuou 'h
psnnsylvania, and senator OF the
United states came down TO do 1t. lie
sat in Congress, he said, aud saw men 90
ont from It. do the deed that Mutt
did. and come back acquitted to their
saats. lie sits In Congress with Mr.
Thompson, Of Kentucky, who slew de-
liberately man accused OF despoiling
bis wife, and who returned to his seat
with the verdict Of a Kentucky jury,
saving he had done no wrong. When
the honor of female Of your family is
sssailed by man, truly or falsely, assume
IL TO be falsely, "take a shotgun ana
shoot him down" So would have ad
viaed Mutt, says this senator OF the
limited States al would have done II,
God forgive If would not.
The fury adopted the view of the law
the Senator proclaimed. IL approved
the law of Mr.. Tnompson's Kentucky
Jury. It did 1t in as bald q case in one
which afforded hardly semblance of
cover to the doctrine that a man be.
lieypd TO have seduced woman is given
over by the law to the womau's kin to
be slain on sight, after days of cooling
time and deliberate reflection and prepa-
ration, even while the victim is fleeing
from his destroyer.
On the trial Of Mutt there was no de-
NAL that he had killed Dukes while he
was seeking to escape that he laid in
wait for him and thrice shot him in the
back, out of a pistol with which he had
been practising mark shooting the same
day with his uncle The evidence Of
deliberate killing was complete and In
dlsputable. In his defence the plea Of
insanity was set up and evidence of his
friends was introduced to show his men
tai weakness But when his advocates
appeared before the jury, they did moi
rest upon this evidence, but advanced thu
doctrine of irresistible impulse" as {
sufficient excuse for their clients act
And, abandoning this in turn, strobe o.
still further to the invocation of tn
senator Of the United States, Take
shot gun and shoot him down" Thi
final position requires no doctrine o
I" irresistible impulse" to sustain 1t.
is wholly at variance with the irrre
sistihle" Idea. Il teaches that 1t is
duty to avengc the offence with shot
gun. II proClaims Il to be right 10 slal
the man accused of wrongng woman
And surely the right aud duty are no
to he resisted.
The truth is that the senator Of th
United States got very much mixed o
the question of irresistible impulse
as an excuse for murder. He wanted I
acquit his client and draw tears from hi
audience aud sustain his fame for elC
quence repute for logic he has little
Irresistible impulse in Itself is n
excuse for crime; for most men wh
do wrong are for the moment incapabl
of resisting their desire to do 1t. Other
wise this excuse would De as effective a
excuse of Dukes seduction, If there wa
seduction, as Of Nuts murder. Irrr
sistable impulse to b3 a reasonable dr
fence must control an unsound mine
aseveil sound mind is presumed by L
law TO be capable OF resisting wrongt
impulse. The crime itself can never
allowed 80 demonstrate the mental I
soundness: such reasoning in cir
would acquit every prisoner.
" Irresistible impulse" in its lei
sense, was 50 imperceptibIe an eleme
in the Nut; case, that the senator Of t
United States did well to abandon
for his doctrine Of justification. l. IS tr
that claim lad 10 just foundation a
that the Judge shook his head from t
bench as the adyoCa e proclaimed It a
ignored 1t in his charge to the jury. B
the jury took not the law Of the cou
but of the senator And 50 it has col
TO be declared in Pennsylvania that MI
de- Is not murder, when the deed Is dc
to ayepge wOman's wrong by
woman's brother or perhaps It may
even be read TO mean that a son shall
proteC ed in killing him who has sl
his father; and titus the vendetta
established in Pennsylvania God 50
the commonwealth