The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-05-31
CURIOUS MANIAUS.

The first concern of the police, when a
crime has been committed and an arrest
has been made on suspicion, is to try to
discover motive. This is sensible line
of investigation. But it presumes that the
criminal was sane enough to have a mo-
tive. 1t is altogether misleading when the
crime was committed by a monomaniac
who had no motive. And this class of
monomaniaes is larger than people suppose.
For some time past ladies in New \ ork
have been annoyed by the performances Of
a yagabUnd who was in the habit of throw
ing ink or some other indelible fluid on
their dresses. lie would creep up behind
them, sometimes in broad daylight, but
,6Eener In crowd coming from a theater
at night, would pour a vial of ink over q
handsome light colored skirt and then
vanish. For weeks the police have watched
for him; rewards have been offered for his
detection; but it was only few days ago
that lie was caught He proved to be a
helper in a livery stable, and gave his name
as John Connors. OF course be had no mo
tive for his acts; he was merely impeied
by malicious instinct to injure people
whom lie did not know and against whom
he had no grudge.
He is another type of the variety Of
pest to which Jack the Ripper belongs. A
/ number of theories have been suggested to
account for the atrocities of that fiend
lola depicts in La Bette Humane" a
monstrOus creature who was possessed by
an instructive impulse to stab and kin and
mutilate young women. He regards it as a
form of insanity, of the inherited type
This is probably truer notion than the
one which imputes to Jack the Ripper a
fanatical desire TO punish a criminal class
The same notion might account for the
conduct of that other maniac who year or
two since used to wander round the streets
OF New York with pair of compasses in
his hand, and to drive the sharp point into
the person OF ladies whom he had never
| seen before and against whom he bad no
enmity. In each case the maniac may have
been subject to spells which oyerpowered
his Intellect, and drove him to the commits
sion of acts which were not dictated by his
volition.
The law, of course, cannot take notice of
involuntary crimes 1t must presume mo-
tive. whether the motive be rational or not.
1t would never do to allow murderer to
escape on the plea that he did not know
what he was doing. so long as in other mat
tiers and under other circumstances he
showed sufficient reasoning faculty to be
responsible for his acts. In the Pomeroy
case it was shown that the boy was domi-
mated by an instinct Of cruelty and blood
thirstiness which was Irresistible. He was
undoubtedly in that respect and to that ex-
tent insane, but the jury found him guilty
and the Court very properly sent him to
jail for life, on the common-sense ground
that whether he was fully responsible or
not, it was not safe to let him be around.
When John COnnors is brought up for
trial his counsel will probably argue that
he is monOmanac on the subject of de-
stroying ladies' dresses, and therefore not
responsible for the particular act charged.
According to the rules of law, man cannot
be punished for a crime which he commits
when his body is not under the control of
his will, unless the responsibility has
been caused by drink. But it stands to
reason that depraved instinct of destruc-
zion cannot exculpate its possessor, for, if it
did, murderer would only have to show
that he had homicidal tendency to escape
sentence every time. In practice prisoners
are frequently acquitted on the ground of
insanity when they are perfectly sane on
every subject, except that they exhibit an
insatiate propensity to commit some par
tlcular crime. But such yerdicts are gener-
ally based on equitable considerations which
do not appear on record.