Evening star., 1900-04-16
COMMITMENTS TO ASYLUM
QUESTION OF REPEATING ACT RE-
LATING TO INSANE PERSONS.
Comment Upon Letter of DIR. Richard
son by Attorney Duval-Con-
stitutiOnal Phase.

Dr. richardson, superintendent of St. Eli
zabeth's Insane Asylum, recently addressed
| the Secretary of the Interior letter upon a
suggested favorable recommendation by the
commissioners of the District of the pro-
posed amendment to the act regulating
commitments to the asylum. The letter
was referred to the Commissioners and by
them to their attorney, who had advised
the repeal of the act of January 81, 1899,
and the re-enactment of the prior procedure
OF trial by jury on the subject Today the
Commissioners received from their attor-
ney letter, in which he states that the
question of the constitutionality of the
present law, which fails to provide for the
determination by jury of the mental con-
dftion of a person sought to be committed
TO an insane asylum, is liable to be raised
az any tme by one of the numerous persons
now proceeded against at the rate of six
per week, or by habeaS corpus by some one
already committed under existing law.
referring to DR.. Richardson's commune
cation, which was published in The Star at
the time, the Commissioners legal adviser
says the doctor ably discusses the subject
from the standpoint of the physician and
admlnlstrator of the hospital for the insane
Dr; Richardson suggested that when the
op1ection to the present law and the pro-
posed amendment is analyZed it will be seen
that this amounts simply to the statement
tnat these are more expensive, and that the
he also suggested that to repeal the present
law and to re-enact the old method of Jury
tral would be to take a long step back
ward.
Information Often UnattainabIe.
very properly, says the attorney, DIR.
Richardson seeks to secure Information
which will be of assistance in the treat
ment of the insane, doubtless a very de-
slrable object, but in very large percent
age of INDECENT insane cases, some having
homicidal tendencies. committed at the in
stance and for the protection of the public
this information, the attorney believes, is
siIlpiy unattainable. In most cases, he
states, they are waits who have drifted into
lhls jurisdiction, and no one knows their
ahtecedent history or whence they came
me objections to the present law the
attorney points out, are three-fold: Its
cumbrousness. its expensiveness and its un-
consttutionality. In the latter connection
ne quotes at length the opinion of the Court
IN General Term in the case of in re Bry-
ant, Mack, 493 in which the court, the
then appellate tribunal of the District, said,
among other things: There must be a regu-
lar adjudication of the question by due
process of law. without which even the
cl.anceilor cannot act and due process of
law in establishing the insanity of a person
mas long been declared to be by inquiry
through jury. 1t would be Impossible.
therefore, that we should recognize un-
,
due process of law. This deprivation of the
noerty or citizen upon the ground of
lunacy Is matter of very grave import
ance, because 1t may easily happen that for
fraudulent purposes, perhaps with a view
10 deprive person owning property of his
control of it, perfectly sane man might
De sent to an asylum by his relations, upon
a certlf1cate of two physicians and be
Illegally confined there for years We hold
therefore, first, that these sections of the
Revised Statutes do not contemplate COM
pulsory seclusion in this institution without
due process of law = and secondly
we hold that the whole matter of the care
OF insane persons is regulated by the act of
Maryland of 1855, which includes this pro-
ceed1ng OF an inquiry by jury"
Opinion Indorsed
1 believe states the attorney "the
opinion OF the court in that case is concur
red in, without exception, by the members
OF the present Supreme Court of the Dis
tHct OF Columbia, and at least three of
them have so expressed themselves
rear We would find ourselves in a most
embarrassing condition if the act of Con-
sress should be declared unconstitutional
as the superintendent of the Government
Hospital for the Insane would he unable
10 make a return justifying the detention
OF any OF the persons who have been COM
mltted under its provisions. The question
OF It's constitutionalty is liab BILE to be raised
at auy time" - ''N'