The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-01-20

by the trial judge. the district attorney. the
trial jurors, nor by any officer OF the court.
CONCLUSIONS.

CONCLUSIONS.
The rules OF law applicable to tho cass
made by tho evidence are simple and we'll
known. Tho responsibility OF tho accused
In respect To any criminal act. is to I've as
certained by inQuiring whether, by reason
OF the existence OF mental disease. the
actor was unable to comprehend its nature
!, relations. effects and legal Consequences;
what was wrong and was unable to re-
sist and refrain from the commission OF
4 tho act.
No pcryersion OF the moral nature or
| mere disorder of the moral affections and
propcnsities. unless accompanied by such
! delusion as to facts as Indicates the sub
version of the will and reason Is TO be
regarded rs constituting insanity In law.
Moral insanity as that term Is used In
some decisions and hooks is not recognized
! as anording immunity from punishment for
an acs otherwise criminal. 10 state the
rule inyerscly, if the actor has reason suf-
fcient TO comprehend tho nature, quality
and legal Consequences OF the act, Is cap
able OF knowing that the act Is wrong and
has sufficient win power 60 govern hlm-
self as TO The act, be is a proper subject
of punishment, These rules are within the
comprehension of every one III ordinary
intelligence. they are founded in sound
public policy and they have the sanction OF
judicial decisions, the opinions OF the most
eminent alienists and the great weight or
enlghtoncd public opinion The testimony
In this case ndduced to show faulty hercd-
I ity should be received with great caution
II resta upon hearsuy III great measure,
although as family history 1t Is receivable
as evidence. 1t is detailed by member
of the prisoners family and IL not corr
roboratcd by other testimony. though on lis
| fnN 10 9t,nf ks.tt .yxst1.
exists, Two OF the family about whom the
witness Taliey tostIies live In tho State
II ought to be presumed that tho nduisl-
tion OF lunaoy In the case OF the maternal
grandfather is of record. But IN the view
taken of tho case Il is needless 70 inquire
as 10 tho truth or falsity OF the historical
evidence The Jurist and the stienist agree
that evidence OF faulty heredity is utterly
worthless to prove insanity In the subject,
unless there Is evidence tending with SOME
degree OF ccgenvy to prove insanity ~ such
subject.
All Of the testimony relating to tho life
Of the prisoner has been carefully oopsid-
cred. No act OF hia seems to be purposeless
Among the many thefts and ktnnred crimes
Inscribed to him. no one OF them appears TO
have been committed under a deiuson as
to fact. IN no one Of them Is there a hint
of mania, and in no one OF them Ia tho
object To he attained other than such as
suited the need OF the Thief The prisoner
was raised la Austin, went 10 school there,
formed business connections, dealt with
all sorts and conditions Of men and yet
no school master, no associate In business
testified TO any ieluaion, or To any act In
consistent with u rational mind, q lnowl-
edge OF right and wrong and perfect yoii-
ton. Taking his life as related the proml-
nent characteristic Is selhshncsS so III
tense as to make him unmindful of the
rights OF others. That his moral nature ~
below tho standard Tor ordinary mortas
is a distinction he shares with the habitual
thief, the house breaker. the robber and
the pirate Taking this 10 be his character
the indulgence In domestic Joys and The
sudden rendirg of such ties when they
have become hndrance are not ineonsiSt-
ent acts. II was and is the contention and
the idea is embodied IN the hypothetic'il
case put to the experts by counsel for the
prisoner, that the homicdes were motive
less and without cause OF reason. Such Il
conclusion is not warranted by any facts
in evidence and the contrary distinctly and
clearly appears. but II II were true, That
the evidence disclOses no motive the rule
OF the law is that 10 hold every one mad
whose acts can not be accounted for on the
ordinary principles of cause and eject :
would give general license, and tho fact
not Justify the inference that IL does not
exist Complaint is made that errors we're
committed by the trial court and that the
decision on appeal was erroneous The
Judges of the appellate court all concuIred
In tho disposition OF the case aud the rui-
ings upon questions raised in the brief OF
counsel seem in harmony with precedenis
in this State. There is one ruling that
should be specially noted. The burden ot
proving insanity was held to be on The
accused. This is in harmony with Texas
decisions, hut the contrary is held IN many
Jurisdictions. Davis w. United States l6p
u. 81
Whatever may be the true rnlo OF de-
rlsion by the courts. IT Is clear TO my mind
that II 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 tho grave responsibility rest
ing upon the governor. after careful con-
sideration. and entertaining no doubt that
ACCUSED was of sound memory and dlscre-
ton" I am compelled TO advise that no
good and sufficient reason is shown 10
warrant interference with the sentence,
W. n. Durham
Member Board OF Pardon Advisers.
January II. 1898.