perimental. The majority rules. Until the majority can know its true interests, misrule must result. A government of the people is the only true government, but the people must learn to be governors before their government can be good. A dictatorship is better than the misrule of a mob, because in the former case there is a better chance to overthrow it.

Mr. ERASTUS W. BENEDICT. There are times when a dictator is needful. The speaker instanced the case of the steamer Arctic, which was lost for the want of a Commander at the critical moment. But after all, a popular government is the strongest of governments. No government has been stronger than ours. Its strongest acts are provided for by law. The Constitution declares the object of the government to be the happiness of the people, and makes the President swear to support it. He can therefore lawfully do anything that is necessary to support it, and lawfully prevent anything that stands in the way of the people's happiness. "He shall see that the republic receives no injury." Who is to judge what constitutes the happiness of the people? The majority. The majority, therefore, must rule. If a policeman arrests me on a charge of crime, I must go with him, even though my submission temporarily robs me of my liberty. Why? Because the majority rules it. Upon this principle rests the whole theory of government. If the Executive does any unusual act necessary to the preservation of the government, without referring it to the decision of the majority, he is still excused; because he has sworn to protect the Constitution. How? By his own discretion. By what means? The army and navy.

Dr. HOMBERGER. If the powers lately exercised by the President are vested in him by the Constitution, why should he have required the Bill of Indemnity passed to excuse him?

Mr. BENEDICT. Because he has enemies. No member of Congress can be arrested for debt. Why? Because the public good so demands. The principle is the same in the Presi

dent's case.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. BENEDICT has shown that this government was formed not for the people, but for the nation. Every man who has written upon government has said that government was for the people. But the moment the government was formed, it proved to be a government for the nation. It follows from Mr. BENEDICT'S argument that this government is based on the same grounds as all others, and is not the exception which we fondly believed it to be.

Dr. HOMBERGER. Even in despotic countries, the press is free in times of quiet. Up to a certain point freedom

.

is undisturbed. That point is where the existence of the government is endangered. It has been the same here. That point of danger may be not in the same place; but the principle is identical. It would therefore seem to follow that in principle, this government does not differ from a despotism.

INSANITY.

The question for discussion was:

WHAT LEGISLATION SHOULD THERE BE UPON THE SUBJECT OF INSANITY? Debate opened by Dr. JULIUS HOMBERGER.

Dr. HOMBERGER stated the recent and notorious case of Miss Underhill, of Brooklyn, who, although a woman of acknowledged refinement and cultivation, was, at the instigation of relatives, and from interested motives, consigned to the dread horrors of a mad-house. Upon her release she brought an action at law against the offending parties; and the only satisfaction she received was six cents damages from the jury. The law here in regard to the apprehension of insane persons is, that any person may be confined for insanity upon the affidavit of two physicians. If wrongfully detained, it is difficult, nay, often impossible to procure his release; and when he is released, as shown in this case, ordinary juries are incapable to render him proper justice. The speaker then mentioned an instance where the cause of imprisonment was not the cupidity of interested persons, but the neglect of indifferent ones. The case was that of a Polish physician, who had filled honorable positions in his native country, and in France and Switzerland; but who, subsequently, upon embarking for the United States, fell ill during the passage, and became weak and delirious. On the arrival of the vessel in New York, he was handed over the side into a boat, the sailors informing the persons who received him here, that he was "crazy." Upon this dictum he was consigned to the Insane Asylum on Ward's Island.

Here he remained some time, the keepers facetiously keeping him in ignorance of his whereabouts. The surrounding country, they informed him, was Switzerland; the city of New York, whose spires could be seen in the distance, was Munich; &c. Not until his release (through the accident of a letter), and his arrival in the city, did he know where he was. He never was mad. He was immured in this insane asylum without due process of law; and an insane asylum is a place where even the writ of habeas corpus has no force. This same person is now a surgeon in the army. Now as to the legislation which this state of affairs seemed to demand. A board of

Commissioners of Insanity, with the power of judges or coroners, appeared to be what was wanted. This board was to pass upon cases of insanity.

Mr. CHAS. MORAN. Although publicity in such matters is often exceedingly painful and mortifying, yet publicity is the best safeguard for the accused.

Dr. HOMBERGER. Under our present system it is often to the interest of relatives to keep the accused immured, and always to the interest of keepers. But in the town of Gheel, in Belgium, some twenty-five miles from Antwerp, where, from time immemorial, it has been the custom to send the insane, no such inducements exist. There they are at liberty to roam the town, a place of some 10,000 inhabitants, and even to leave it if they choose, though this they rarely do, unless recovered. They lodge with the peasantry, and pass their time in rural occupations, and the society of children. Overseers are at hand to minister to their wants, but not to coerce or restrain them, except in cases of confirmed violence.

Dr. ELLSBERG confirmed the remarks of the preceding speaker in regard to Gheel. The insane were not obliged to work, but they preferred to do so, and the product of their labor paid the expenses of their maintenance. Insane persons like to be alone, and like to be free. They prefer agricultural employments; for this combines both comparative solitude and freedom. An institution on the Gheel plan has for some time past been sought to be carried out here by Dr. PAREGO, formerly superintendent of the Gheel establishment, and now in this city. This is what we want-this and the Commissioners of Insanity advocated by Dr. HOMBERGER.

Messrs. MORAN, SMULL, and STERN made remarks of a similar tendency, and favored a reform of this nature.

Mr. FEZANDIÉ. This question of lunacy has been much abused. How is it possible to determine in many cases whether a person is insane or not? It is said that all mankind is cracked up on some point or other. If after reading the late encyclical letter of the Pope, a question concerning his sanity was raised, it might go hard with the Holy Father. In the city of Naples, a head, said to be that of Saint Januarius, born A.D. 272, is exhibited in the cathedral, enclosed in a glass case. Two vials, containing a hard substance, believed to be his blood, are also shown. On September 19th, every year, the fête day of the saint, and on some other stated occasions, this alleged blood is seen to liquefy, to bubble, rise in the bottle, and fall again. On such occasions popular enthusiasm is raised to its height. Upon the occupation of Naples by the

French, the priests, designing to raise a tumult, declared on one of these days that the blood would not flow; thereby leaving it to be inferred, which it readily was, by the populace, that the saint was displeased with the new régime. Gen. Chomponniere, divining the true source of the trouble, commanded the priests on pain of death to cause the blood to flow; and flow it did. Should anybody now put faith in such alleged miracles, would he not be considered a lunatic ? Yet the men who believed in them then, were considered sane enough. Like all others, this social question is decided by the first principle of Social Science-Utmost Liberty. Why should we deprive an insane man of liberty unless he is violent and dangerous? The same justification would apply to confining a man in a hospital against his will because he was sick, or had a broken limb. Government has no right to interfere. If we could determine with precision when a man was insane, we should find that many a one who has been punished as a criminal, has only been unfortunate. Is drunkenness insanity? Is spiritualism insanity? Is mesmerism insanity? Is Millerism insanity? The hesitation to answer these questions proves incontestably that it is impossible always to determine upon alleged cases of insanity, and when it is not possible to determine, we should let the matter alone; except where actual violence demands coercion.

Mr. Wм. B. SCOTT. No good can result from the establishment of public hospitals for the insane. Were there none such, it would be found profitable by private parties to provide them for the public. The rich would pay for the accommodation-the poor could be set to work, and their labor would be a sufficient recompense for their support, as in Gheel. In exceptional cases something else might be done.

Mr. SIMON STERN. This is a subject which properly calls for governmental jurisdiction. It belongs to the proper administration of justice. Private insane asylums are invariably a means of injustice. Nothing would exist to prevent designing parties from consigning their personal enemies or troublesome blood relations to these irresponsible insane asylums. In Philadelphia, where a large asylum of such a nature is kept by a certain Dr. KILPATRICK, everything depends upon the Doctor's honesty. He may bury an innocent person alive if he chooses.

Mr. LEOPOLD RIESS. I am in favor of the doctrine of Utmost Liberty for insane persons, as well as for others. If private asylums are forbidden to be closed to the public, no such abuses could exist.

Mr. ALEX. DELMAR. I can see no valid objection to the establishment of an American Gheel; but it should be free from government interference. There cannot be too much liberty allowed to the insane. A man may be insane one moment, and sane the next. If he is not at liberty while he is insane, what chance is there that he will obtain his liberty when he becoines sane? Then, the determination of cases of insanity is altogether too delicate a matter to be intrusted to any formula. Is a man insane who, like Peter Simple's father, might think himself a balloon? Is another who conceives that he has squared the circle, or devised a perfect system of government, insane? Why not let the insane alone? We have no right to confine them. In violent cases, I confess that our own safety compels us to interfere; but only so long as the violence is imminent and dangerous.

After all, is not this tyranny over the insane, but another form of the tyranny of the majority; for what assurance have we that we are sane, and that those whom we immure in madhouses are insane, unless we derive that assurance from our greater numbers ? As to the establishment of Commissioners of Lunacy, I am opposed to it. The thing has been tried in England, and has signally failed. Wilkie Collins' admirable novel of the Woman in White contains a graphic account of the shortcomings of this system.

Dr. ELLSBERG. The Commission of Lunacy is not designed to be like that in England; but to be a Court of Experts, in order that the accused may have a fair trial. Such a Court should be composed of men who are thoroughly familiar with the subject.

99.66

Mr. DELMAR. That alters the case. There are now 47 public Lunatic Hospitals in the United States. These establishments contain something like 11,000 patients. Surely something can be done for these unfortunates. Look at the reported "supposed causes" of insanity. We have "perplexities in business," "war excitement," 99 66 use of tobacco," " spiritual manifestations," "fright,' erroneous education," "political excitement," "mesmerism," "religious excitement,' ›› "Millerism," "fear of poverty," "slander," "ridicule of shopmates," "insufficient nutrition" (Grahamism), "ill-health," &c., &c. I am now quoting from an official report of one of these hospitals. Does there not appear to be room for investigation and reform here? Then look at another point. According to the Census, there are 25,000 insane persons in the United States. This can only be a small portion of the true number. These 47 hospitals are limited in their accommodations to 11,000 pa