THE SOMERVILLE CASE. TO THE EDITOR.

Evening Post, Volume L, Issue 43, 19 August 1895, Page 3

THE SOMERVILLE CASE. TO THE EDITOR.

Sib— lt the New Zealandor of August, 1925, should ohance, on perusing a file of yonr journal, to oast his eyes on the Post of this evening, he will necessarily oonolude that we. who 'lived and made laws in 1895 were a semi-barbarous and at the same time a mQat illogical and unreasoning people. On one page he will find that, we t hanged a wretched woman — the very idea of which is barbarous and revolting— bat casting hia eye to another part of the paper, he will observe that we were so uneducated that we allowed a deliberate murderer, a man, to esoape the gallows, beeanse we had not yet learned the total unreliability and wortblessness— worse than worthlessness — of modioal evidence in oases of alleged oriminal insanity. As for the hanging of the woman, she is dead now, and there is'nt any use in speaking of it. But the time must be near when so shoolting a brutality will not be tolerated amongst oiviliaed men. No law, certainly, should say that a man should be executed while a woman should not be. What will probably happen will be this — that a law will be passed making it oompnlsory that a woman only should hang a woman, and the result will be thatno woman would be hanged, for no woman, not the vileat, would put a rope publioly round a woman' b neok in cold blood for money. The BDeohole of a man doing thia thing is a disgrace to the age wo live in. And will we ever, or never, learn that this reliance whioh we place on medioal evidence, in oases suoh as Somerville's, is altogether misplaced? I remember a case whioh oocurred on the West Coast some years ago, on all-fours, in many respeots, with Somerville's. It was at the outset alleged that the man to be tried for murder was insane. " Very well," the Judge said (I forget what Judge it was), " we will empannel a jury to decide that points" And the jury selected were twelve ordinary but intelligent miners. Evidence on both sides was freoly given ; medical men came from even Wellington to deolaretbat the prisoner (who had committed a very deliberate 'and brutal murder) was " insane." The persons who knew the man beat did not say so. And the jury, strange to say, with all this conflicting testimony, had not the slightest difficulty in arriving at a quite Batisfaotory verdict. "We find," they said, " that Jinn Donoghue is sane enough to take his trial." He did thereupon take his trial, and all Mr. Ouinness' legal cleverness could not snd did not save the culprit from the gallows. The jury, you observe, dian't say the man was absolutely sane, of clean mad. They conolnded that he knew quite well what he was ahout, and should take the consequences of his aption. And there's the whole point. Ordinary laymen can always see it, if the theories and refinements and balderdash of the medioal expert be only kept out of the way. Ii should be stated that the jury whioh tried the man for murder was not ~the Eame jnry whioh had tried the question as to his sanity. Also, it wasn't the Crown nor yet the medioal faculty that suggested the oallingof the man's mates and people who knew him, md had to do with him, as the bestevidence, md the moat reliable, as to his bU to of mind [t was the jnry of miners (Donoghue was a niner himself) who-'aflked for, and insisted >n getting, thia evidence. At the subsequent rial for the arime^of course — the question of nsanity having been disposed •of— the word wasn't again mentioned, bnt the faots conlegted with the murder alone were investigated. " * I am, fto., ' » H.E.R. 12th August.

TO TH« IDITOR. Sir— Having read your leader in Monday's paper, I am led to write and ait the insertion of the following brief letter. In the first place, I may say that a friend of mice, living, many miles from v Wellington, and Quite Mart fromanvthingin connection with the trial, knew this man' SomerviUe and majnbers of his, family- in Ireland, one of chem.(an^nnole, I believe) having died insane.., Several- instances of mental aberration on the part of SomerviUe were also recalled. Now, this is a. somewhat unique, case, and, while recognising the gravity of it, and ready and glad to commend anyone aiming at the preservation of order, and personal security to all from outrage or wrong, I take a view totally differing from yourself on most points, and as to methods, Ac, I am of opinion that capital punishment is a relio of barbarism as brutal as murder. You spoak of " imaginative writers " and of a " bamboozling farrago of rubbish," &o. It is quite common with some, for poets, men of genius, of giant intelleot and perceptions, and even men not gifted with a particular short-sightedness, to bo dabbed "cranks" or "mad." I wonld say with Goethe — " We are accustomed to Bee men deride what they do not understand, and snarl at the good and beautiful because it lies beyond their sympathies." 'I hese matters have a greater and deeper bearing upon praotioal everyday life and affairs than we at first perceive. What is oommon sense? Logio may be used to oppose anything, even itself, which fact has afforded interest and amusement to philosophers for ages. Re your itilicieed portion of the Criminal Code, I think SomerviUe wai by no means a maniao, but at the same time I believe that he by no means' understood "the quality of the act." He may have known it was wrong (in the estimation of others) whilst his mind was not otherwise occupied, but the deed was apparently deliberate, and certainly justified and right in his estimation. The "quality" ofsuohanaot is not ope to be'readily understood. Pardon, Mr. Editor, for saying I doubt if you under-, stand it, or folly. May I ask how many years you (and many lesser) have spent in unprejudiced study of mental physiology? Whtfe personally not agreeing with the ver- j diot'ttf the jury, all considered, I oertainly can find a great deal in favour of that verdict, and think that the jury are not in any way deserving of oensure, which many, mostly shaUow-minde'd/are so ready to give. My hope is that this and similar desperate deeds in other parts of the world may rouse the people to consider how the cause may be put away, and whether it oannot be soon made practical to lead the imperfect-minded " out of temptation," or the opportunity of multiplying their evil, that ''the Kingdom may sooner oome." People, will you think, think, and free yourselves from prejudioe if you can ? I am, Ao., KVEtiTN MAODONALD. 14th August, 1895.