father was insane. 2. Testimony claimed to show that Clark was insane, or in a state at least bordering upon insanity, in Chicopee, Mass., in 1847, eight years before the commission of the homicide. 3. Testimony claimed to show that he was insane in 1850, for a very short period. 4. Testimony claimed to show that he was insane for about six months previous to the homicide. 5. Testimony claimed to show his insanity in the most satisfactory manner a little over three months after the homicide.

The testimony introduced in regard to Clark's father was intended to show that Clark inherited a disposition to insanity. It was, however, so doubtful and contradictory, that it deserves no consideration at our hands.

The testimony in relation to Clark's conduct in the Chicopee love affair of 1847, is all in the form of depositions in answer to certain interrogatories. As we know nothing of the character of the witnesses, and as they were not subjected to the ordeal of a cross-examination, we should distrust, to some extent at least, any inferences that may be drawn from their testimony.

As to the testimony in regard to a single strange transaction in 1850, standing as it does so entirely by itself, with no evidence pointing in any way to insanity for years after or years before it, we think it of little account.

The evidence on the remaining two points, the fourth and fifth, is the only portion of the testimony adduced to prove insanity, upon which any real reliance should be placed. It is this testimony alone, of all that was offered by the defense, that can have any clear bearing upon the state of Clark's mind at the time of the homicide. This, then, we propose to examine in connection with some rebutting testimony offered on the part of the state.

It is claimed by the defense that this testimony shows distinctly that Clark began to be decidedly insane about November, 1854, nearly six months before the homicide, and that the insanity was recognized clearly three months after this act, in the two interviews which Drs. Earle and Butler each had with Clark at that time. It may be stated here that Drs. Earle and Butler were present during all the trial, and that they testified that the testimony which they heard corroborated the opinion which they formed at these interviews. Dr. Ray also was present throughout the trial up to the time of the rendering of his own testimony, which consisted simply of opinions on the evidence which he had heard, and of which he took notes. His opinion coincided with that of Drs. Butler and Earle.

Let us first look at the testimony in regard to Clark's appearance and conduct for some time before the homicide. Certain evidences of insanity are claimed by the defense to be brought out distinctly in this testimony. These are, inattention to business; absence of mind; depression of spirits; sleeplessness; and an occasional silly laugh, which was insisted upon as a very decisive sign. The testimony in regard to these points is very contradictory. Some testified that they saw these evidences of insanity in Clark, while others testified that they did not. It is true that positive evidence is of more value than mere negative evidence on such points. But the positive evidence is not in itself satisfactory. Besides, there were some witnesses strangely absent, whose testimony on these points would have probably been of greater value than that of any others, viz, Clark's clerk, and his most intimate friend, Walter Barnet. The testimony of the latter would also have been of value on some other points, as appears from the reference made to him by some other witnesses.

The testimony of some of the witnesses in relation to Clark's appearance and conduct, is evidently very highly colored. We refer to that of Mrs. Parmalee and that of Clark's sister. Although they were unimpeachable witnesses, it was manifest that from very natural causes they drew too strong pictures. They make Clark cry altogether too much. Their testimony is exaggerated in other respects also. As an example of this exaggeration, coming from intense sympathy and an excited imagination, we cite the following passage from the testimony of his sister. "One evening he came up and lay down on the sofa, and seemed to feel very wild. He shifted his head from one place to another, and rolled up his eyes. Mrs. Collins was there. She said, are you sick, or are you crazy? He didn't answer for some time, and then said, they are trying to roast

me.

He then jumped up and ran down stairs." Such an account is not at all consistent with the indefinite insanity claimed to exist in Clark's case. None but a man palpably and strongly insane, or one afflicted with delirium tremens, would say that they were roasting him. This is altogether too gross a delusion for the case. We are informed that this expression is a slang phrase; and probably the use of it by Clark, as such, took hold of the imagination of his sister, when she called it up to her recollection. Other parts of the testimony have the same inconsistency, as compared with Clark's general appearance and conduct as seen by others.

In the testimony in regard to Clark before the homicide, there appear certain notions that are claimed by the defense to be insane delusions. It will be proper to comment upon these

in connection with the testimony of Drs. Butler and Earle, for here they are brought out in full with some additions. They visited Clark for a personal examination of his case about three months after the homicide. They visited him separately, twice each, Dr. Earle on July 26 and 27, in all five hours, and Dr. Butler August 4 and 21, three hours and a half at the first visit, and how long at the second he did not say. They think that Clark did not know who they were, or for what purpose they visited him. All that he knew, as they supposed, was that one of his counsel, Mr. Harrison, brought them there to talk with him and hear his story. The testimony of both as to his delusions is very much the same. These delusions were three in number his notion, in opposition to decided evidence to the contrary, that Mrs. Wight loved him and did not love Wight— his idea that Wight was a villain, having a strange power over Mrs. Wight, intending to ruin her, and that for this purpose he had seduced her before he married her-and then, springing from all this, his idea that he had a mission to perform, which was to deliver this woman from ruin by killing her destroyer. Taking these ideas with the views and arguments, many of them absurd, which he adduced in their support, the case looks like an undoubted case of insanity.

These notions appear, to some extent, in some of the testimony in relation to Clark before the homicide. This is true especially of his notions in regard to the affections of Mrs. Wight and the character and acts of her husband. The other idea, that it was right for him to kill Wight in order to deliver Mrs. Wight from ruin, does not appear then, though perhaps it may be claimed that there are some indications of at least a tendency to such an idea. Clark, in his conversation with Dr. Butler three months after the homicide, did indeed tell him that he had determined to kill Wight, but that he consulted his friend Barnet about the plan, who dissuaded him from it. But of the truth of this we know nothing, for Barnet, as we have before stated, was strangely absent at the time of the trial. His name was called with those of the other witnesses for the defense, but he did not appear. The attorney for the state, observing this, at once instituted a search for this witness, but he could not be found, for he had left the city, and did not make his appearance till after the trial was finished. If he had been present, and had testified that Clark did thus broach to him the plan of killing Wight for the sake of rescuing Mrs. Wight from destruction, here would have been a strong confirmation of the great point of the defense. On the other hand, if he had testified that Clark had never said anything to him

about his intention to kill Wight, it would have weakened materially the argument of the defense on this point. It is much to be regretted that the testimony of this witness could not have been heard in the case, for it would have had an important bearing upon the great point on which all hinges. For the question in the case is, whether Clark committed the homicide from wicked revenge, or from the insane delusion that he would thus save Mrs. Wight from ruin. If the existence of this delusion cannot be proved, the defense falls to the ground. The other delusions may be proved to exist, and yet, though we may perhaps from these properly pronounce the man to be insane, he cannot be held guiltless in the eye of the law, unless it be proved that the delusion in regard to his mission existed also, and prompted the commission of the homicide. This link is absolutely necessary to connect the insanity directly with the act. This point we shall recur to again.

If Clark killed Wight from the insane idea that he would thus rescue his wife from destruction, we should expect that after he had committed the deed he would, if he expressed any feeling at all, express that of joy at the accomplishment of his design. But how was it? At the first he said nothing by which you could judge what his views and feelings were in committing the act. And when he did speak of them, did this delusion in regard to his mission come out? Not at all. But, on the contrary, his language was that of gratified revenge. Just after the homicide the Rev. Mr. Garfield had long conversations with him from day to day, the main points of which he gives in his testimony. In these conversations things were said that were calculated to bring out the delusion in regard to his mission, if it existed in his mind; but they failed to do it. Mr. Garfield reminded him "that he had committed a great fault, of which he ought to repent." What was his reply to this? Was it a defense of himself on the ground that he had saved a lovely woman from being the ruined victim of Wight? Not at all. One would suppose that the insane chord would have responded to such a touch, but it did not. Clark simply said that he "didn't know as to that." And then in reply to Mr. Garfield's remark, that he had sent a fellow-mortal into eternity without preparation, he brought out his infidel sentiments, saying, "I don't believe in any eternity for him or any other man; if he dies that will be the end of him." Mr. Garfield then said, "You are candid to me, but you were not candid to the man of whom you borrowed the pistol." To this Clark replied, “I did shoot a two-legged cat." Mr. Garfield asked, "Do you intend to compare a fellow-man to a beast?" Clark said "Yes,

so far as relates to his death it will be all the same."

The con

versation, let it be observed, was a very free one, and while the small estimate which Clark in his infidelity put upon the value of human life was most fully brought out, there was not a hint of the insane delusion which it is claimed by the defense prompted the homicide.

But let us look a little further. The next day after this conversation, when Clark had heard of the death of Wight, he expressed himself to Mr. Garfield as being "fully satisfied." Satisfied at what? That his mission was accomplished, and that the woman was now safe from the destroyer's toils? No. His utterance is simply that of gratified revenge. He said, "I owed him a debt, and I have paid it." He said also to Dr. Hubbard that he "didn't suppose that any one would justify him in what he had done to Wight, but that he had had his revenge, and was satisfied." And then some two months after he said to Martin Gunn, with an oath, that he "was glad Wight was dead and out of the way."

There is one conversation, in which, perhaps, it may be claimed that Clark's delusion as to his mission appears. It is his conversation with Jacob Gould shortly after the homicide. He said to him that in killing Wight he had no other wish than to promote Mrs. Wight's happiness, and that he harbored no malice against Wight. All that can be said of this is, that it is consistent with the existence of the delusion in question; but it is far from being enough to prove that the delusion did exist.

If this delusion really did exist in the mind of Clark, we should expect that it would, immediately after the homicide, overtop everything else in his expressions of his views and feelings. We do not mean that it would absolutely shut out all personal feelings of revenge as a matter of course, but that it would, at least, stand out in bold relief, and that other views and feelings would be but occasionally and slightly manifested. For the delusions of the insane man possess him. It is this strong word that fitly expresses their hold upon the mind. They are accordingly ever ready to manifest themselves. They respond to the slightest touch. The mind can indeed be directed to other subjects; but any, the smallest, circumstance associated with the delusion wakes it up at once. It is this "method in madness" which is strikingly absent in Clark's case, so far as we can judge from the testimony before us. And the absence of it certainly throws doubt on his pretended insanity.

There is another fact which throws doubt upon Clark's in