Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-06-20
CASE OF BROKER MARTIN
MARYLAND LAW RELATING TO
INSANITY DISCUSSED.
Opinion of Baltimore Lawyers - Re-
gard Statute as Defective and
Unconstitutional.
Special Correspondence of The Star.
BALTIMORE, Md. Jul

Specidi Correspondence OF Inc Star
BALTIMORE, Md, June 90. 1907.
The secrecy attending the proceedings by
which Thomas r. Martin. the real estate
dealer Of Washington, was declared in
sane and placed in the Gundry Sanitarium
near this city, brings to light the fact that
in no other state in the Union is it so easy
to have person adjudged of unsound mind.
Under the Maryland law all that is neces-
sary Is to have two physicians-any two
will do-sign a certificate to tn effect that
person is insane, and the person SO ad-
judged may then legally be incarcerated
in an insane asylum.
Here is the remarkable statute to be
found in the public general laws of Mary
land, acts of 1889, section 81:
mo person shall be committed or con-
fined as patient in any institution, public,
corporate or private, or almshouse, or other
place for the custody and care Of the in
sane and idiotic, except upon the written
certificate Of two qualified physicians of the
state of Maryland made within one week
after separate examination by them of said
alleged lunatic and setting forth the in
sanity or idiocy of said person and the
reason for such opinion. No certificate shall
be of force which shall be presented for
the commitment of any patient more than
thirty days after date of examination.
An Attorneys Opinion.
In discussing the existing state of the
law upon the commitment and Incarceration
of lunatics, Isaac Lobe Straus, a prominent
lawyer of this city, said: Il have always
thought that the law In its present state Is
seriously defective. The provision that
merely upon the certificate Of two physi-
clans a person alleged to be insane may be
he 70 a
There certainly ought to be some full and
carefully considered provision in the law
limiting the manner In which the confine-
ment of this unfortunate class OF persons
is to be brought about.
For my own part, I think decidedly
that 1t ought not to be lawful to take any
steps looking to the confinement of persons
supposed to be insane without an order
from a court of record, to be rendered to
proper applicants, either a relative or a
close friend Of the person in question, and
only after an appropriate procedure sus-
tanned by adequate aff1davits and proofs. 1t
which are of the highest Importance, be-
cause to provide relief. as our statute does,
after q person has been removed or spirited
away upon the mere certificate of two ply
sicians may prove to be an utterly fruit
less remedy.
Procedure Necessary.
IA proper procedure, the main ingredient
of which should be adequate and RESPONSE
BILE proof should be established by law as q
condition precedent to the removal and con-
fnement Of any person upon the ground of
mental infirmity. OF course, provision
should be made for a more summary pro-
ceeding when the lunatic appears to be
bent upon doing mischief to himself or an
other person. 1t is generally understood
that in such cases private person may
confine an Insane person without legal au-
thority, but this cannot be done unless 1t
is necessary to prevent injury by the lunatic
to himself or another. In any event, the
proper course to pursue is to have the
question of lunacy decided by an inquisition
under the direction of the proper court.
Under finding of lunacy by the jury
Of inquisition the court passes the order
disposing of the custody Of the person and
Of the property of the lunatic, and such an
order Of the court is enforcible like other
of its DEGREES. 1t is the enforcement of
such a decree that public agencies should
be called in. But unless an alleged lunatic
Is evidently disposed to do mischief, in the
absence Of legal inquisition and an order
of the court pursuant thereto, the police
have nothing to do with the matter further
than to keep the peace. If the person said
to be lunatic is bent upon mischief, then
the police may restrain him or her as In the
case of a sane person. But the main thing
Is to procure proper amendments to the
present statute along the lines which have
suggested
Another Lawyers Views.
Mr.. William Cotton, another well-known
lawyer, said:
This law has been on the statute books
in Maryland since its passage in 1856, but
1t is clearly unconstitutional. Any one who
reads it will see at a glance the opportu-
nifty it affords of getting persons out Of
the way, especially If they are the least &C.
centric If two persons could be found who
would certify to the mental unsoundness of
a person they know to be of sound mind.
under the statute quoted such person could
be arrested and confined. The law is bad
in that 1t affords no opportunity for the
alleged lunatic to defend himself or be de-
Tended, and opens the door to the possible
preparation of great fraud.
THE only thing to be said in defense of
the statute is that 1t affords an easy and
speedy way of dealing with the cases of
persons who become suddenly insane It
avoids publicity in many cases and a delay
that would sometimes be inadvisable. The
secrecy with hich the statute may be put
in operation, however, is one of the objec-
tons to It,"