St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-02-08
INSANE TO Be RELEASED.
THREE HUNDRED COMMITTED UNDER
/, TIE DEFECTIVE LAW.
TWO HUNDRED THERE WET.

Two HUNDRED THERE NET.
Every Patient Committed Under
the law OF 1898 Is Entitled TO
Immediate Reiease%They Are
Not. However, Entitled to
Mileage Home-.Attorney Gen
eral Childs' Opinion.
AT 8 a. m. yesterday the trustees of
the state insane asylums met at the
Ryan. The purpose of the gathering
was to consider what measures should
be adopted in relation TO the insane
wards of the state. 1t was felt that
under the decision of the supreme court
declaring the detention OF many now i'll
the hospitals as against the law, some
| definite and speedy action was neces-
sary, Under the opinion of Attorney
General Childs submitted to the trus-
tees. every patient committed under the
new law is entitled To immediate re-
lease, but not at public expense in
! being returned to their homes. The
| authorities will no longer DE liable,
under Attorney General Chiids' opin-
ion, when they notify patients that
they can be released. The relatives,
as we'll as the comm lifting officers.
however, should be promptly notified.
so as to remove the patients SO illegally
detained at once. Failing to do this,
then the probate judge OF the county
| from which the patients have been COM
mitted should at once be notified, as
we'll as the probute Judge in the county
where the asylum is situated. AT yes
terday's meeting there were present.
among others, DR.. a. f. Kilbourne, C..
W. H.. Knapp and L. IL. Titus, of
Rochester; J. W. Mason, DR.. George
! Welsh, 0. c. Chase. Fergus Falls; DR..
| TomlinSon, f. Brown, st. Peter. In the
course of the meeting it was shown that
2SS patients had been committed under
the new law. OF this number IT'S still
remain. There were reported 30 at the
Fergus Falls asylum, and at ST. Peter
| l37. Following is the opinion of At
torney General Childs:
ST. PAUL, Feb. 5, 1894.
! Hon. j. w. Mason, Member of Board
of Trustees Of Hospitals for Insane:
In view of the decision by our su-
/
Blaisdell VS.. Billings, your board sub
United for my consideration the follow
| ing series of questions:
First-Under the late decision of the
supreme court in the BlalSde!l case.
| have the superintendent Of the hoSpi-
tails tor insane authority to hold patients
committed under the law of 1898?
SecOhd-lf not, is it incumbent on the
various hospitals. at their expense, TO
| return patients so committed to the
counties from which they were sent?
Thlrd-The patients now in tine sew
eral hospitals for insane, committed
under the VOID act of 1898, not being
legal inmates of such hospital, has the
| board any authority under the law to
eXpend money to convey them back to
their respective counties. and, ii so,
under what provisions of law?
FOurth-Should patients committed
under the act of 1893 be released from
the several hospitals without notice to
the authorities in the several counties
from which they were committed?
Fifth-Have the judges of probate of
| the several counties of the state author
ity to go to the hospitals and hold eX
| aminationS at the hospitals and commit
patients to such hospitals?
SiXtl-ln case the hospitals return
| patients committed under the act of
1893, to whom shall SUCH persons be de-
| livered?
| Seventh-In case the authorities of
| the several counties committing pa
tleiltS under the act of 1893 neglect or
refuse to take such patients away after
being notified by the hospital author
tiles, what action shall the hospital au-
thUrties take i'll such case?
Erghin-ln case patient committed
under the act Of 1898 is physically I'M
| able to be taken away, what action shall
then be taken by the hospital author
tiles?
| have the honor to advise you, in re-
ply to the several inquiries, as follows;
| First-The practical effect of the de-
clSion or the supreme court is 10 iDyall-
| date all commitments made pursuant to
chapter 5, General Laws 1898. 1t there
| fore follows that the superintendent of
the hospitals for the insane have no au-
thority t. assume further custody of or
! control over patients so committed.
| Every patient thus unlawfulIy commit
ted enjoys the undoubted right OF with
drawal at pleasure.
Second-lt is not incumbent upon the
hospital authorities to return at public
expense patients so committed to the
counties from which they may have
| been received. The obligation OF those
| authorities to such patients will
be fully discharged by informing
| them that they are at liberty
to withdraw from the hospitals.
Justice, however. will require that both
the friends of such patients, as we'll as
the committing officer, he advised that
further right of custody is disclaimed
by the hospital authorities, and request
! ing them to remove the patients at an
| p1rIV date IF wNniH IA tn n ltOxxy
patients to remain within the institu-
lions a reasonable time after such notice
shall have been given, and as circum-
stances may require.
! Third-The third, fourth and sixth
| questions are covered by my answer to
the second.
Fifth-Judges of probate have no au-
thorlty to visit hospitals located beyond
the boundaries OF their counties and
there act III their official capacity as
col:mitting officers in the commitment
of insane persons.
Seventh-Local authorities and the
friends Of the patients SO committed,
neglectiDg or refusing TO remove them
from any hospital after notice so given,
information may be filed pursuant to
chapter IA, of the Probate Code, with
the Judge OF probate of the county in
which the hospital is located. This. in
my opinion, is the correct solution of
the problem. The expense of recommit-
ment would thus be mihimized. Valu-
able evidence as to the mental condition
of the patient could be readily provided
by hospital officers and physicians. the
public would thereby be less menaced
by the liberation of dangerous subjects,
and, what is not all unimportant conSid-
| Grafton. the best interests OF the patients
| themselves would thereby be Subseryed
This will, of course, result in entail
ing considerable expense upon the
few counties in which the institutions
are located. Whether or not future
legislature may be disposed to relieve
them, wholly or in part. of the expense
thus incurred, the situation commands
that the expense be visited upon them.
In this connection it is not to be over
looked that the supreme court expressly
state in their decision that the provis-
ions of the old law are now in force.
10 ln 2 hot