Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-12-22

far from receiving such consideration
when he is brought into crowded court
room. there to sit and hear his own ALI
ments and those OF probably dozen otnes :
unfortunates discussed before a jury OF
twelve men.
II am well aware that some OF my
brethren at the oar bark back to the cry
that a trial by jury Is granted oy we Sun-
stitution Of the United States fortunate
ly for the progress OF the iegal proiesa Sai
down a decision in February. 1905. whlch
holds that an inquiry into the mental con-
ditien of a person alleged to be of un-
sound mind is not a criminal prosecution,
and therefore does not require !ury
under the third article Of the Const1tu-
ton or the sixth amendment. ana fur.
Their that the term due process OF law.
as used in the fifth amendment TO the
Constitution. means that law OF the land
which derives its authority from the legis-
lative powers conferred upon Congress
by the Constitution of the United States
exercised within the limits therein pre-
scribed and interpreted. according TO the
principles Of the common law
Justice Barnard Quoted.
THE opinion to which refer is that of
Mr. Justice Barnard. reported in rs Wash
ington Law Reporter. 12S On re Emily
Murdock). and the quotation just given
is from iHurtado agt. California. 10 u. s..
5l6 Justice Barnard holds in the Muir
dock case, following the decision of the
highest court of the land, that if Con-
gres, provides by law for hearings in
lunacy cases by a Judge without a jury,
proceedings in conformity with such a
law are due process Of law as required
by the fifth amendment. Concluding his
opinion. Justice Barnard, reviewing our
many lunaey laws covering the past few
years, gives the weight Of his good judg-
ment In favor of a hearing without a
jury, when ne says:
My experience and observation under
the three different statutes as a judge
lead me to the conclusion that the said
best Of the three Tor the Individual who
is suffering from mental disease, as there
Is less disturbance to the patient when
he is brought into open court before a
single Judge than there is when he is
brought before marshars jury of thir-
and is subject to all the excitement of
an inquiry and argument before the jury
Sum Of Investigation.
81 have studied the lunacy laws of many
jurisdictions and discussed the subject
with scores Of lawyers. alienists and MEM
bers of hospital boards. The sum of my
investigation and inquiry Is that the
wisest action Congress can take is to
draft a law In close keeping with the
New York insanity law Of 1896.
among other provisions. this law says
as to hearings:
1.-The judge to whom such application
is made may. If no demand is made for
a hearing in behalf OF the alleged in
sane person: proseeaa , ,ortnW1tn 10 deter
This law fully guards gil the legal
rights Of an alleged luhatic: at the same
time in the interests Of humanity It pro
Th:s has heen in operation for more than
ten years in New York state and has
siye,, satisfaction. 1t should be the law
in this District. No one can seriously
contend that the rights OF an alleged luna
lie can better be protected by jury than
by any one OF the justices OF the Supreme
Court of this District