Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-12-31
Commitments for Insanity.
To the Editor Of The Star

AS a physician I cannot concur with the
opinion expressed by DR.. White in his re-
port OF the Government Hospital for the
Insane as published in The Star Of De-
cember %. concerning commitments to the
asylum. when he says. 1.-THE crying DIS
feet In the present commitments to the
hospital Is the fact that the commitment
has to be in open court by fnuuisition be-
fore jury. Trial by jury is not the
crying defect In the present method Of
commitment to the asylum. 1t is the fun
damenta1 basis of Anglo-Saxon turispru-
dence The laws Of this District as re-
gards lunacy cases are based upon the
English common law. Committme to
the insane asylums are in derogation Of
the right of personal liberty, and no onx
should contend that the infringement or
limitation of that right should be taken
except from the most urgent necessity and
by the most conservative method Is 1T
wise TO abolish jury trials in such COM
mtttmentS?
DR.. White. in his report Of 1906, saws that
the question Of insanity is solely and alb
solutely medical question to be solved
by medical men, and there Is no more
sense In submitting such a question to a
submitting any other medical question,
such, for example, as the existence of
typiioid leVer' TO such jury" In point of
Iact the question of insanity as deter
status and civil rights Of the one alleged
to be insane; If found insane he Is d.
vested or all property rights and of his
standing as a citizen in every way. Even
person isolated by reason of smallpox
infection is not so Invested of all civil
rights. In cases of capacity to make a
will or contract 1t would be clearly i'm
possible to determine the question at }ssuA
by the verdict Of medical men solely win
out upsett1ns the whole theory and prsc-
tice of our laws. Numerous other instances
might readily be cited bearing out this
contention.
That the question of insanity is solely
and absolutely medical question is an
erroneous statement. In point of fact the
question or insanity can only be deter
mined by the symptoms discernible in any
given case; and for the most part such
symptoms are readily recognizable when
attention is called to them by the avera ge
juryman. 1t is true that manifestations
of TYPHOID fever might be observed by
medical men where the ordinary observer
would not perceive. but in many cases of
insanity there is lack of physical or ana
tomlcal defects, and in such case the
whole question turns upon the mental
equilibrium and capacity of the person in
question. Upon this point the physician
and psychologist may be able to throw
some light but the ultimate decision
should rest in the verdict of a jury Of UNI
biased minds.
DR.. White in his report also said: Many
states of the Union have long since
done away with inquisition by jury 1t is
not believed that majority of the states
have abolished the right of trial by jury
in insanity cases or that they will ever
do this Surely enlightened lunacy leg
tslation" calls for the exercise Of the high
est degree of precaution In the commit
ment of citizens to an insane asylum; and
the wisest tribunal devised by man Is that
of a well-constituted court presiding over
the deliberations of well-chosen jury,
and such tribunal will rarely err in
making commitments to an insane asylum
where they are actually necessary Any
other method is liable to abuse and to
mistakes destructive Of civil rights
Repeated acts Of Congress have been
enacted during the past ten years making
changes in the method of commitment to
the insane asylum-in one instance at
tempting to abolish the right of trial by
jury, which act was subsequently re-
pealed. There certainly seems to be no
popular demand for the adjustment of the
trial by jury in insanity cases The ques-
ton has been thoroughly and often con-
sidered by the District authorities.
District Attorney Duvall opposed any
interference with the right of jury trial
in his opinion Of December 90, 1892, as did
also United States Attorney Henry e.
Davis, in his opinion of March 10. 1900, be-
fore the Senate judiciary committee. The
court In general terms has also decided
the question adversely to the contention
of DR.. White.
1t does not appear that the attempt to
popular demand or from the District au-
thoritles who contract for their care in the
asylum. The constitutionality and advis-
ability from an administrative standpoint
are open to many other serious objections.
CHAS. M. EAIMONS.