The San Francisco call., 1901-12-04
NULL|F|ES STATE
LUNACY LAW
Supreme Court Declares
It Provides No
Safeguard.
Any Sane Person Might Be
Sent to Asylum, Justices
Hold.

The Supreme Court rendered a decision
yesterday which practically invalidates
the State lunacy law passed in 1897. The
ground for this action is that the statute
in question makes it possible for a per-
son to be deprived of his liberty without
being given an opportunity to answer
the charges against him.
Habeas corpus proceedings were insti-
tuted by w. H. Lambert, who is confined
in the Napa State Hospital for the In
sane. He alleges that a friend petit
toned that he be sent to an asylum; that
two physicians declared he was non COM
pos mentis and that Judge Buckles of
Solano County ordered his commitment.
The first that he heard of what was go-
ing on was when the Sheriff placed him
under arrest and took him to the hospital.
The court decided that any one else
might be "railroaded' to an asylum with
out hearing, and that therefore the law
is unconstitutional in that it deprives one
of his liberty without due process of law.
It is primary principle of the United
heard before he is imprisoned.
/ The State lunacy law became a part Of
the statutes March 81, 1897. 1t provides
that an application for a commitment to
an insane asylum must be made by a rel
ative, friend or qualified official The
application must be attended by a certifi-
cate of lunacy signed by two physicians
who are authorized medical examiners.
The Judge must then consider the case
and may commit the person charged with
insanity.
The number of physicians who may be-
come medical examiners is unlimited.
Their testimony is not given under oath,
nor do they administer oaths to witnesses
A person is allowed to continue hunting
medical examiners until he finds two Of
them who will issue a certificate of lu-
macy. The court declares that under
these conditions any one may be sent to
an insane asylum.
In reference to the case in question
Justice Harrison, who writes the opin-
ion, says:
shall not be deprived of his liberty without due
process OF law Is violated whenever any such
Judgment is had without giving him an op-
portunity to be heard in defense of the charge
1t is not enough that he may know by chance
that he is being tried a charge of insanity;
the law must require that notice to that effect
be given.
In closing, the opinion reads as follows:
Under the foregoing considerations it must
be held that the insanity law of 1897 to the
extent that it authorizes the confinement of
a person in insane asylum without giving
him due notice and opportunity to be heard
upon the charges against him, is unconsttu-
tional and that the proceedings by virtue of
which the petitioner is held by the respondent
are invalid.
The court then orders the release of
Lambert. Justices Henshaw. Temple and
Chief Justice Beatty concur with Justice
Harrison.
Justice Garoutte writes the following
dissenting opinion:
AS 1 read the foregoing opinion it renders
entirely void the present lunacy law 1t is
hardly necessary to say that such grave re-
suits should be avoided if possible and that
no technical construction of this law should be
invoked which leads to such serious conse-
quences 1 believe a fair liberal construction
of the law may be had which will support its
constitTtionality and for that reason I dissent
that branch of the case.