in that respect, Dumont says, was: "Every man to his own spoonful." The great Lord Eldon he called "The Lord of Doubts." John Doe and Richard Roe he called "The turtle doves of the law," and he might have had in mind the results of our Kansas Prohibitory Law when he uttered the following with reference to an irrevocable law (at all events, it seems to fit the present situation in several particulars): "When a law is immutable and happens at the same time to be too foolish and mischievous to be endured, instead of being repealed, it is clandestinely evaded or openly violated, and thus the authority of all law is weakened."

M. Dumont draws a parallel between Bentham and Montesquieu, and says of the latter:

"No writings can be mentioned which have done so much for the human race, in their generation, as Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws, and from which, at the same time, a reader of the present day can bring away so few sound available ideas. In making this contrast it never should, and never will, be forgotten, that we are chiefly indebted to Montesquieu himself for the present comparative uselessness of his justly celebrated work."

Not a little of this will apply, no doubt, at this day, to the works of Benthain; but we can acknowledge his merit, and derive great benefit from the study of his life and many of his works. Every lawyer ought to read his "Defense of Usury."

When a youth, he modestly declined to attach his signature to the Thirtynine Articles of Faith, giving as his reason that he had never examined them. He took nothing for granted. He was a kind of a Missourian in his way of reasoning. He had to be shown.

In an age when capital punishment was inflicted for the pettiest form of petty larceny, he boldly advocated the utter abolishment of the death penalty. Leaving out of the reckoning all account of the numerous positive reforms to which he is justly entitled to the credit, the world owes much to his sublime courage in daring to stand alone for a new order of things. His faults were many, his schemes not always practicable, but, actuated by a sincere and lofty purpose, he accomplished much for the welfare and happiness of mankind.

Wyckliffe has been called the Morning Star of the religious Reformation. Bentham was the Wyckliffe of Law Reform.

Hypnotism as a Defense in a Criminal Action.

BY HARRY G. KYLE.

This is a skeptical and materialistic age. We relegate things of a mysterious character to the domain of superstition. Hypnotism is one of the mysteries we look upon with somewhat of an aversion of feeling. Scientists have been devoting a persistent energy to the investigation of psychological phenomena for the last century. The result of their investigation, whatever it may be, must be given a just consideration. It is the nature of man to investigate. When Newton's law of gravitation was made known to the world, men began to investigate and soon astronomy from chaos and empircism became an exact science. When the true atomic theory had been found, the mysterious alchemy became an exact science of chemistry. After having examined the mysterious world about him, man naturally turns to himself, the most mysterious thing of creation, and begins to investigate.

However mysterious and imperfect the science of hypnotism may seem, if such a power exists, and one person can exercise it upon another, it may affect the legal relations of the one controlled by such a power. A man's actions are presumed to be the result of the free exercise of his will power. He is created with the freedom to exercise the power of the will and the law judges him accordingly. There are provisions wisely made in cases wherein it is shown that he did not have the complete control and free exercise of the will, as in cases of duress and insanity. Should there be such a power as hypnotism, and that an individual could be made a victim of its influence, the influence would be similar to that of duress and would be governed by similar principles.

HYPNOTISM AS IT EXISTS.

Is there such a thing as hypnotism? The investigation of this subject has been made by a few scientists. It has been confined to the realm of experimenting and has not appeared in practical life. From its mysterious nature it has been looked upon by the public with doubt and suspicion. To determine whether there is such a power and its characteristics, we must examine the result of the investigation. Mesmer of Paris, in 1778 was the first to advocate the theory that one individual could influence and control, the will of another. This was called mesmerism. Since then, scientists have been investigating the influence, and the phenomena of mesmerism are now explained by modern hypnotism which of late has been extensively studied. In investigating, the authorities on the subject, it will be found that all agree that there is such a power as hypnotism. But they disagree in many questions relating to it and it is this that makes it an indefinite and inexact science, if it may yet be called a science.

Probably the best theory advanced as to an explanation of how this power is exercised, is the doctrine of duality of mind, which recognizes two minds; the subjective mind and the objective mind. The objective mind takes cognizance of the objective world. Its media of observation are the five physical senses. Its highest function is that of reasoning. The subjective mind takes cognizance of its environments, by means independent of the physical senses. It perceives by intuition; it is this that is acted upon by hypnotic suggestion. The objective senses must be in abeyance for it to perform its highest functions. The subjective must have control of the objective. This is why consent of the subject is an important factor of hypnotism.

The science of hypnotism is based almost exclusively upon laboratory experiments. Human beings are not like inanimate atoms, capable of being delicately tested by a fixed rule. These experiments prove nothing definite. There are some traces of consciousness that remain to tell the subject he is playing a comedy, consequently he will suffer slighter resistance. He will more readily try to commit murder with a piece of paper than with a real dagger. He will always dimly realize the real situation. While these experiments prove nothing definite, they prove there is such a power as hypnotism and a possibility of its being used for criminal purposes.

Experiments show that every external suggestion made in a hypnotic state is resisted with greater or less resistance by a force within the subject himself; this is called auto-suggestion. Auto-suggestions, arise from the habits of thought of the individual and the settled principle and convictions of his whole life. "The more deeply rooted are these habits of thought, principles and convictions, the stronger and more potent are the auto-suggestions, and the more difficult are they to overcome by the contrary suggestions of another." One author says it is impossible for an hypnotist to impress a sug

gestion so strongly upon a subject as to cause him actually to perform an act in violation of the settled principles of his life. It would be indeed the greatest thunder-bolt cast at Jehovah's throne, could virtue and innocence be victimized by such a power.

Whether hypnotism can be successfully employed for the commission of crime, depends, in each individual case, upon the character of the person hypnotized. Settled principles and convictions are not so deeply rooted in some individuals as in others; they might be overcome by criminal suggestions or the subject might be of a criminal character.

PROOF OF HYPNOTISM.

I do not think it would be difficult to prove that there is such a power as hypnotism. The late authorities, Benet, Fere, Moll, and Hudson, all agree that the possibility of committing a crime by this power is certain. The proof of such a force as hypnotism, if it be publicly demonstrated during the course of a trial, would open up a new defense by creating in the minds of the jurors a reasonable doubt, which undoubtedly could be used in many cases to defeat the ends of justice; though it must be recognized that no person under the influence of such a force, should be convicted to suffer the pen alty for a crime which he did not intend to commit, and which at the time, he did not know he was committing.

To the credit of humanity, all the suggested crimes have been confined to the harmless sphere of experimenting and hardly appeared in real life. Should this defense be made with. sufficient evidence to be judicially considered, there would be many difficult questions arise in determining whether the defendant had acted without responsibility upon a criminal suggestion made by another. It would be necessary to prove, first-that the defendant was subject to such influence. Authorities on the subject say it is not every one who is subject to hypnotic power. An experiment performed on the defendant during the course of the trial would not be sufficient evidence, because he would be too willing to submit to the influence. Evidence showing that he had weak will power would be uncertain. Only evidence showing that he had at some previous time been under the influence would be substantial.

Second-Was the defendant really hypnotized?

This can be determined only by his actions. No man can swear as to the condition of the mind of another at the time he did an act. According to the principles of post-hypnotic suggestion, (that is, a suggestion that remains after the subject has been hypnotized), where the subject has control of his will, except as to this suggestion his actions may be rational in regard to everything but the committing of this deed. In this case, the lack of motive would have to be shown.

Third-Was there a criminal suggestion made while the defendant was hypnotized?

This proof becomes necessary from the nature of the defense, the defend

ant claiming that he acted upon no motive within himself, but on the suggestion of another.

Fourth-Who made the suggestion?

If the defendant was hypnotized and acted upon a criminal saggestion, it is necessary to prove who hypnotized him. According to the principles laid down by those who advocate the theory of hypnotism, the subject is under the control of the hypnotist; no one else can influence the subject, therefore no one but him could have made the suggestion. This power is so uncommon to individuals, that the question would arise, Who could have exercised the power? The defense would probably not be made without stating who had such a control over the defendant.

Fifth, and the most important of all-To what degree is the defendant suggestible?

This, as we have seen, depends upon the character of the defendant. It must be determined whether his principles of morality, habits of thought, and convictions according to his settled principles of life could be overcome by a criminal suggestion contrary to his mode of thinking. It is shown by experiments that it is impossible to make the subject drink a glass of water, if he is told that it is wine, when this is against the habits and settled principles of his life. If the defendant is a criminal character, he would be more susceptible to criminal suggestions. But if of a criminal character, this would prejudice a jury against the genuineness of such a defense.

The question of proof would be very difficult and could hardly be established only in cases in which the defendant had consented to be hypnotized and had sufficient direct evidence to establish the fact that he was hypnotized. In a case of this kind, it would hardly be probable that a hypnotist would make a criminal suggestion, because of the responsibility resting upon him. It is claimed by some, that the great danger of this power being used as an instrument in committing crime, is that the subject may be induced to believe that he is acting without restraint. But this would only be possible in the case of morally defective persons, and in this case, if the defendant had no motive, he would soon realize it was not a normal thing for him to do, and would begin to enquire into what power had come over him.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A HYPNOTIZED SUBJECT.

It certainly would be very difficult to establish a good defense of hypnotism. But should it be established, the following rules would apply to the defendant. If in a case, the subject had consented to be hypnotized without any knowledge or intention of acting upon a criminal suggestion, and commits a crime as a result of a criminal suggestion of the hypnotist, he is not responsible for the crime; having entered into the transaction with no criminal intent, and commits the crime without the freedom of decision. A French writer on this point says, "Those who voluntarily submit to hypnotism, are in about the same predicament as those who by alcohol or other narcotic agencies put themselves into a state of bondage when they cannot