The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1898-01-27

the case. .
posed to me in
It the defendant
character OF
uat\ the act was
~. stion as to whether
he will power to desst
aston of the net after he
Il on it, | have mo opinion.
looking at defendant here
MIN, ! have begun to be-
fe is now an organic change
is biain." DIR. Talley testi-
pert that the prisoner was in
u. ID. WOoten, having testi-
g state that the prisoner was
asked by the defense his opin-
he Hypothetical case put to DR..
I'm, and he answered that defend
IS insane. DIR. J. w. Mclaughlin,
ing to the Hypothetical case put by
icfensc, stated that he would judge
prisoner to be morally insane. In
opinion of the witness any map who
Juld kill his wife and children without
rcat motive is insane. DIR. WOrsham
and DIR. Wallace, while they DO not re-
tract any statement made as II witness,
ask that the Communication he granted.
Many reputable physicians, lawyers and
citizens have signed the application on
the ground that the prisoner is of nm
sound mind. No recommendation hns
been made by the trial judge the district
attorney the trial jurors, nor by any of1
fcer of the court.
Conclusions.
The rules Of law applicable to the case
made by the evidence nrc simple and
well known. The responsibility of
the accused in respect to any
criminal act, Is to be ascertained by in
quriDg whether. by reason of the cX-
istcnce of mental disease, the actor was
unable to comprehend its nature, rcla-
iions. effects and legal consequences;
was unable TO know that he was doing
what was wrong and was unable to re-
sist and refrain from the commission of
the act. No pcrversiOn of the moral
nature or mere disorder of the moral
affections and propcnsities, unless accom-
panied by such dclusion as to facts as
indicates the subvesion of the will and
reason, is to be regarded as constituting
insanity in law. Moral insanity as that
term is used in some decisions and books,
rs not recognized ms alfording immunity
from punishment for an act otherwise
criminal. To state the rule invcrsely,
If the actor has reason sufficient to com
tlfc rrtpre. quality and legal
cnces Of The net, is capable of
that the act is wrong and has
will power to govern himself
10 act, The Is n proper subject of
ment. These rules are within the
fchensipn of every one of ordinary
ligcnce, they are founded in sound
ilic policy and they have the sanction
judiciaY decisions. the opinions of the
dost eminent allenists and the great
weight of enlightened public opinion The
testimony in this case adduced to show
family heredity should be received with
great caution. 1t rests upon hcarsay in
a great measure, although as family his
tory it Is receivable as evidence. 1t is
detailed by n member of the prisoners
family and is not cOrroborated by other
testimony, though on its face it is APP
parent that better evidence exists. Two
Of the family about whom the witness
Thllcy tcstilcs live in the state 1t
ought TO be presumed that the inquisi-
tion of lunacy in the case of the maternal
grandfather is of record. But in the
view taken Of the case. it is needless
TO inquire as to the truth or falsty of
the historical evidence. The jurst and
the alienist agree that evidence of faulty
hcrcdity is utterly worthless to prove in
sanity in the subject, unless there is evil
dence tending with some degree of CO.
gency to prove insanity in such subject.
All of the testimony relating to the life
of the prisoner has been carefully con
.sidercd. No act of his seems to be pur
poscless. Among the many thcfts and
kindred crimes ascribed to him, no one
of them appears to have been committed
under n delusion as to fact, in no one
of them is there hint of mania, and in
no one of them is the object to be at
tanned other than such as suited the need
of the thief. The prisoner was raised
in Austin, went to school there, formed
business connections, dealt with all sorts
and conditions of men, and yet no
schoolmaster, no associate in business
tAg A1t 20 1nIn 10 nm ant
inconsistent with rational mind, n
knowledge of right and wrong and per-
feet volitiOn. Taking his life MS related,
the prominent characteristic is selfish
ness so intense rs to make him unmind-
full of the rights of others. That his
moral nature is below the standard for
ordinary mortals is distinction he
shares with the hahitual thief, the
houscbrCakcr, the robher and the pirate.
Taking this to be his character, the in
diligence in domestic joys and the sud
den rcnding of such ties when they have
become hindrancc are not inconsistent
acts. Ii was, and is the contention, and
the idea is embodied in the hypothetical
case put to the experts 10y counsel for
the prisoner, that the homicdcs were
mOtivcless and without cause or reason.
Such Il conclusion is not warranted by
any facts in evidence, and the contrary
distinctly and clearly appears; but, If
it were true that the evidence disclosed
no motive, the rule of the law is that to
hold every one mad whose acts can not
he accounted for on the ordinary prin-
ciples of cause and effect would give
general license, and the fact that no
sane motive is discoycrablC will not JUS
fify the inference that il does not exist.
Complaint is made that errors were com
mittcd by the trial court and that the
decision on appeal was erroneous The
judges of the appellate court all con-
CURED in the disposition Of the ease, and
the rulings upon questions raised in the
brief Of counsel seem in harmony with
precedcnis in this state. There is one
ruling that should bc specially noted.
The burden Of proving insanity was held
TO be on the accused. This is in har-
mony with Texas decisions hut the
contrary is held in many Jurisdictions.
Davis vs.. u. s., 100 L. $.
Whatever may Ice the true rule of de-
cision hy the courts, it is clear to my
mind that if upon the whole case the
governor should entertain serious
doubt that the prisoner was sane. the
death penalty ought not to be suffered.
Mindful of the grave responsibility
resting upon the governor. after care
ful consideration, and entertaining no