t| ] THE INSANITY IODGE.I ^ f ____... i The Sacramento Bee of the 7thIJ '*r | inst, republished our editorial of last j u*eek on the subject of murderers es-j caping the proper punishment for ; their crimes through ex]ert testi-j ninny as to their insanity, and com-d j ments, in part as follows:* \ Not know ing anything about theII merits of this case beyond what* developed at the trial. The Bee is not ** j in a position to say that the disposition of Harrison was improper.' But it agrees in a general way with the observation of its Mendocino cotemporary that the defense of insanity in such cases is too easily established. Some authorities hold that no man ever commits murder when he is in his right mind. The question which should address itself in all such casei- as the one referred to is whether or not the j)erpetratorI of the deed was morally responsible for his act. In nine cases out of ten where the defense of insanity is invoked. such sense of responsibility existed at the moment of the com-® mission of the crime, Where a man is sane enough to transact business over a period of main' years and make no remarkable demonstration i | of mental unsoundness, there should be no reason to suppose that he could commit a murder without realization of the enormity of the n| crime. A man who would murder his wife in coid blood should not be permitted to invoke too much charity in his behalf. No man guilty of such n deed could be expected to come up to the requirements of normal manhood for no perfectly normal man would or could commit murder. Necessarily the man who would wantonly take the life of another is«rmore or less of a monster, and it was never the intent of the law of capital punishment that such a man should be permitted to escape the penalty by advancing the plea of some sudden remembered disposition toward insanity.biJfsi11il8eer-eyec;b1bJ1[1est-t4s