Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-02-07
A SINGULAR PROCEEDING.

The methods of administering Justice in
France radically differ from those of any
other country. The French Courts in
dulge in practices that in this country or
in England would not be tolerated. For
instance, in what is known as the CONNER
cial Courts, which sit at ports of entry, the
practice obtains of exemplifying actions
concerning which there is conflict of
testimony. Thus in a case of collision in
harbor between vessels, it is a common
thing for the Court to take to boats, to
place the ships, or others, in the position
in which those in question were said to
have been Just before the accident, and
then require them to be moved as the wit
nesses agree they were moved at the time
of the accident. The Court is thus enabled,
in some degree, to reproduce the situation.
With us a diagram would be made and the
witnesses would be required to point out
the positions of the boats upon the paper
In the case of the woman Bompard, we
are told that the Criminal Court is about
to exercise broad powers, by permitting
Charcot, the celebrated expert in hypnot-
ism, to put the woman in hypnotic condi-
ton in open Court, to ascertain, if posssi-
ble from her revelations made in that
state, if she really was the murderer of
Eyraud. If this is done singularly in
teresting question will arise-in fact many
questions. For instance, will the Court be
justified in receiving the developments as
testimony; in other words, in accepting
the unconscious statements of the prisoner
against her, thus compelling her to testify
against herself while her mental powers
are possibly under other than her own
control? VIII the French Court dare to
establish the precedent that will approve
the method of "magnetizing" the prisoner,
and accept the result of her hypnotic
revelations as the truth Certainly in
this country science has not so far ad-
yanced upon the realm of the law that
such procedure is possible, nor is there
reason TO believe that it ever will. In
America we do not believe that Courts
will ever accept the testimony of a
dreamer, or hypnotized person against
another, to say nothing of taking it against
the patient. How can the Court determine
that the subject placed under the "1nfu-
ence" is not merely creature of the will
of the operator? is vital question. We
can rest assured that an American or an
English Court would feel insulted by such
proposition as the French tribunal is re-
ported to have entertained. Too little is
known as yet of hypnotism to justify its ac-
ceptance as science, or at least science
of such certainty as to warrant its devel-
opments being received in evidence for the
establishment of a fact, or for its dispute.
If it should turn out that the woman Bonn
pard, while IN an unconscious state, makes
statements and INDUCES in actions indi
eating that she was engaged in the murder
of Eyraud, and on the strength of such
Testimony" she should be sent to the
gulllOtlne, tne clVllzeu WorIu Will NC
shocked and viii enter its protest. 1t may
be that the purpose of the Court is only to
ascertain facts that will enable the officials
of the police department to procure other
testimony that will lead to the conviction
of the woman in regular form, but even
then, we are compelled to look upon the
proceeding as one in violation of the rights
of the prisoner, and one that will estab-
lish dangerous precedent.