Dr. Lyman, and in reply he said, "I should say he was sane." Cross-examination by Mr. Wade brought out the admission that every act stated in the hypothetical case of the prosecution might have been performed by an insane man, and that a man under the influence of delusions might be insane and irresponsible and yet appear quite sane on many points.

Dr. Lyman was followed on the stand by Dr. John A. Benson, two years Superintendent of the Cook County Asylum. His testimony was very lengthy, and he was very decided in his opinions as to the insanity of the accused. Nothing in fact seemed capable of changing them, he maintained that an insane man could not “perform the actions as outlined to me in the hypothetical question and be, in my opinion, mentally irresponsible." In this he stood alone. among the medical witnesses for the prosecution, all but two of whom were asked the question whether all the statements contained in the State's hypothetical case were not compatible with insanity. One, as will be seen, rather evaded the question, the others with the exception of Dr. Benson, unhesitatingly admitted that such was the fact. The two of whom the question was not asked, Drs. Spray and Bluthardt would undoubtedly have made the same reply.

To show still further the opinion of Dr. Benson, when the hypothetical case of the defense was given him, he answered that, assuming everything in it as true, he saw no reason to consider the individual anything but sane.

Dr. Andrew J. Baxter was the next witness, he considered that the hypothetical case of the State indicated sanity, but in the cross-examination admitted that the acts narrated might have been done by an insane individual. He also admitted a limited experience with insanity. The following is extracted from the record of his cross-examination:

"Q. Now I understand you to say in answer to Mr. Trude that you thought the man was partially insane? A. Well now that requires a little explanation if you will permit me. I have got some views in regard to this man myself. My belief in regard to this man Prendergast is this: That he is weak-minded; that he is eccentric; that he is vain and pomp

ous and has a great conceit of his own importance and so on,. but while he is eccentric in his manner, morose in his disposition, cross in his temper, morose and cross and so on, at the same time the man is perfectly capable of telling what he is doing and knowing between right and wrong. That is my position in regard to Prendergast. . . . Q. Well, do you think that this man's brain is, to a certain extent, diseased? A. O, you can have that structural change. Q. What do you mean by structural change? A. Anything that is brought around by the development of inflammation, a disease. Q. Well, don't you think that this boy's mind is diseased to a certain extent? A. No, sir; I do not. Q. Don't you think it is abnormal?. A. I told you he is a crank. Q. He is what you term a crank, Doctor? A. Yes, sir."

Dr. J. K. Egbert, ex-Assistant County Physician, was the next witness. He testified that, in his judgment, the prisoner was sane. On cross-examination he admitted that all he knew about the prisoner was learned in the court room, that the actions narrated in the hypothetical case of the State might be all performed by an insane man, and that there was a certain incongruity in an illiterate newsboy demanding the position of Corporation Counsel.

Dr. N. S. Davis was the next witness called for the State. He had interviewed Prendergast in the jail and considered him sane. The hypothetical case of the State indicated sanity in his opinion. When asked in the cross-examination whether the acts there narrated could not have been performed by an insane man, he replied, "Well, to say what is possible is to assume more than human beings can do. They do not know what is possible. It is not at all reasonable to suppose they were insane."

In view of the fact that the hypothetical question of the defense was not asked Dr. Davis, one statement of his is notcworthy. He said it was a poor time to go and question the accused after the crime was committed; the mental condition must be determined mainly, if not entirely, from his condition and conduct prior to the act. There is no reason to suppose Dr. Davis had any knowledge whatever of the prisoner, except

what he learned during the trial, in fact it was not claimed that he had, and yet he seemed to have made up his mind very positively notwithstanding the undisputed record of the insane acts of the prisoner.

Dr. Leonard St. John, a surgeon, was next called. The following is taken from his testimony:

"Q. Will you please give your views on paranoia? A. Paranoia is quite a new term. It has been brought forward by some authorities to define a species of mental disease. Authorities differ as regards the essentials necessary for a paranoiac, so much so that I find it covers every degree of mental condition from a simple case of hysteria to a case of acute mania. They are all covered by the generic term paranoia. The authority who has quoted paranoia most extensively is one I have heard mentioned here to-day; that is Spitzka, whose definition is probably more clear. Do you wish me to give it? Q. Yes, sir. A. It is more clear than any of the other authorities. He defines it as a crank, a cranky state of insanity. Q. You heard defined here by somebody a quotation by Spitzka. You said something about the next page. A. That was in reference to the configuration of the skull and face if I remember right. Q. Can you quote from the book from memory? A. It was quoted from the book that such an individual would have a deformed brain; that he would be sexually perverted, and numerous other traits, and I think the witness was asked whether that would indicate insanity, such a condition of head. Such a head indicates an idiot, an idiot only, and you will find in Spitzka, page 88 or 86, where Spitzka qualifies it and says that they are idiots only and that those who are insane and not idiots, there is nothing in the configuration of the skull which would indicate anything at all according to Spitzka... Q. What do you say with reference to that idea of his of being Corporation Counsel, under the circumstances? A. Simply that he had a good opinion of himself and his abilities, and wished to be Corporation Counsel. Q. Is there any evidence of delusion in that? A. No delusion; desire doesn't make a delusion." .. Mr. Trudes' hypothetical question for the State was pro

.

pounded to the witness, who answered "I would consider him

sane.

In the cross-examination by Mr. Wade, the witness said that the fear shown by the accused when in the jail at the time of the Mayor's funeral, was an indication of a sane mind. When pressed as to whether insane persons might not feel fear, he said yes, but that it was a sane element of insanity." This he explained as the retention of a natural instinct in the insane mind. He admitted also that all the acts stated in the State's hypothetical case might be done by an insane person.

Dr. St. John is not an alienist, but this cannot account for all the errors in his testimony. Paranoia, as understood by specialists in insanity is not quite the indefinite thing he makes it, and if his reading had been to any extent accurate, he could not have believed his own statement. Spitzka does not say that only idiots have cranial deformities, in fact he is badly misrepresented in this testimony. Fear, as a sane element of insanity," is a novel idea; as a purely animal emotion, its manifestation is one of the most frequent phenomena of mental alienation, in which the higher inhibitions that restrain it are suppressed or weakened. The senior counsel for the prosecution, nevertheless, made the exhibition of fear on the part of the accused one of the strongest of his points to prove his sanity and apparently carried the jury with him, thus making an evidence of sanity out of one of the most characteristic symptoms of a deranged mind. That he could have gotten a physician who claimed to know anything about insanity to support him in this, shows how fictitious such claim must be, and is remarkable to say the least.

The last two medical witnesses for the State need not take much of our space. One was a homeopathic practitioner, who had made up his opinion from a ten or fifteen minutes interview with the prisoner in the jail and observation of him in the court room. The other was a general practitioner whose experience with insanity was not extensive, and who admitted that certain things in the accused seemed peculiar and showed indications of an unbalanced mind. Both admitted the compatibility of the actions in the State's hypothetical case

with insanity, and neither could be called very strong witnesses for the prosecution.

I have not reviewed the medical testimony for the defense, as it did not present the peculiarities of that for the prosecution. On the one hand we have the facts that out of six alienists, selected by the counsel for the State, on account of their qualifications as insanity experts, and who repeatedly examined the accused some days or weeks prior to the trial, only one could be utilized against him, and this one, not by any means superior to his confreres, while testifying for the prosecution, admitted the defective organization of the prisoner, and that certain facts of the testimony embodied in the hypothetical case of the defense, must necessarily indicate insanity Three of these experts, Drs. Brown, Church and Dewey,* were subpœnæd by and testified for the defense. Besides these several other medical men of more or less experience in the case of the insane, including in their number Dr. J. G. Kiernan, a well-known authority on insanity, and Dr. Wahl, the jail physician, gave unequivocal testimony on the same side.

On the other hand we have the fact that apparently only two of the medical witnesses for the State had examined the prisoner before the trial, one of them, Dr. Spray, their most competent witness as regards experience with insane cases, made, as has been seen, admissions that ought to have materially affected the value of his testimony for the prosecution. The other one, Dr. Baxter, also made admissions, not only that the prisoner was a crank, an abnormal individual, but also that he personally did not know very much about insanity. The other medical witnesses were apparently picked up at random, their essential qualification being their opinion that the accused was sane. Only two, or at most three, of the State's medical witnesses could claim much experience with insanity; one of these, Dr. Spray, has been already mentioned, the others were Dr. Benson, two years Superintendent of the Cook County Asylum, a fact which, by itself, does not prove competency as an expert, and Dr. Bluthardt, who, as a former County Physician, had had experience with insane cases in the jail and in their trials before the county court.