New-York tribune., 1886-03-11
THE DEBATE on RIEDS SANITY.

1t does not appear probable that the Canadian
opposition can make much capital ont OF the
discussion of the execution of Rlel which they
have forced on the Government. The evidence
in support Of the theory that he was insane is
not such as to carry conviction with il. The
medical examiners, it is true, are mostly of the
opinion that Rcl had hallucinations, but under
tie ruling decision of the English iudgcs, that
namely in the NIcNaughtOn case, this admission
does not relieve the accused of legal response
bility The rule referred to is " that nOtwith
"standing the party did the act complained Of
"with a view, under the influence of insane de-
"lusion, of redrcsSing or revcnging some sup
"pOsed grievance or injury, or of producing
somcpubc benefit, he is nevertheless punish
"able according to the nature of the crime COM
"mttcd, If he knew at the time of committing
"such crime that he acted contrary to law"
There seems to be here a distinction drawn be-
tween knowledge Of right and wrong and
knowledge Of legality and illegality, and it is
one which in the circumstances might well be
taken. But Mr.. Justice Mauc has gone further
than the rule cited, for ne pats it thus "TO
"rcudcr a person irresponsible for crime on ac-
"count of unSOundncss of mind, the unsound-
"ncss should be such as rendered MIN incapable
"of knowing right from wrong
THIS Interpretation seems to introduce some
difficulties, for it is clearly much easier to make
sure that a man knows whether or not ne is
breaking the law than to prove that he is
capable of distinguishing between right and
wrong In the case of Ricl it was claimed by
the defence that he was not capable of 50 dis
tnguishing, and his admitted hallucnations
were called in evidence of this mental unsound-
ness. It's clear that if man believes himself
to have mission from Heaven to redress GER
tain wrongs, such a belief is liable to alter his
views of hun an standards of ethics completely.
He may in such a condition become persuaded
that it is right to break the laws, and wrong to
obey them. That Riel was under such hallu-
ciuations is generally admitted, and under the
rule in the McNaughton case his UnsOundncss
on certain points does not interfere with his re-
spOnsibility; since, though his theory of right
and wrong may have been an insane one, it
cannot be pretended that he did not perceive
the iilcgality of his course. No doubt the ques-
tion OF insanity is one of the most difficult with
which the courts have to deal. There are so
many degrees and kinds of mental unsoundness
that any rOugh-and ready rule must be inap-
plicablc cquitably to some of them. Yet it is
necessary tor the administration OF justice That
definitions and prescriptions should be estab
lished
The rule in the McNaughton case is not so
framed as to satisfy the aienist 1t does not
purpoIt to meet the latest conclusions of sci
ence, nor perhaps could rule so cOmpIehen-
siye and subtle be drawn. As regards the Riel
case. it will be sufficient that it represents the
law of England, which is all that the opposition
can claim the application of, and which here
certainly covers the matter III debate. The
fact moreover, that French Canadian medical
men have come to the same conclusion with the
English Canadian experts must go far to div est
the issue of any race significance. That Riel
was man of unsound mind, but responsible in
the eye of the law, seems to be demon
stiated. The law, of course, may be attacked,
but as Sir John Macdonald is in no way account
able for its prov isions such line offers no adj
vantages to his enemies. In fact, it looks now
as though they would have more to fear than to
hope from full discussion of the case, and that
the most probable issue of such a debate would
be stronger justification of the Government
than has yet been made. AS time enough has
passed to assuage the bitterness of race antip- |
athy, such an open discussion may also change
opinion even among the French Canadians |