Opinion
05-21-1903
In re LEE.
John T. Bird, for petitioner. E. R. Walker, for respondents.
Petition by William J, Lee for writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from the New Jersey State Hospital for the Insane. Writ denied.
John T. Bird, for petitioner.
E. R. Walker, for respondents.
REED, V. C. This inquest is, in my judgment, confined to the inquiry whether Mr. Lee, the petitioner, has recovered his sanity. I remark that this is the only serious inquisition, for I have no doubt whatever that at the date of Mr. Lee's reception into the State Hospital he was suffering from mental disorder. The petitioner had been the subject of an attack of typhoid fever, followed by erysipelas, in the early part of the year 1902. In the summer of 1902 he conceived that there was in existence a conspiracy organized for the purpose of accomplishing his business ruin. As conspirators, he fixed upon gentlemen distinguished in the community for rectitude and probity. He believed that some or all of these gentlemen had ruined his credit with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and with his bank; that they had defeated his efforts to secure contracts for heating a school building, as well as contracts for heating the Statehouse; and that they had stripped him of his property in the Phcenix Ironworks. On August 9, 1902, the petitioner sent the following letter to Robert W. Smith, treasurer of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company: "I have reason to believe that State Treasurer Briggs is responsible for my removal from your weekly accommodationlist. This is to tell you, that if Briggs succeeds in ruining me, I will, deliberately, with malice aforethought and in cold blood murder the cowardly cur." Subsequently, on a Monday in August, Mr. Lee broke nine panes of glass in a paneled door of Mr. Harry Hill. Mr. Lee had some dealings with Mr. E. C. Hill concerning an exchange of property, and on July 5, 1902, wrote him a letter from which the following is extracted: "If you don't produce a receipt for the taxes, I will have you arrested without a warrant, then I'll break a window in my wife's house and swear that you did it." On a Sunday in August he broke two large panes of glass in the window of Mr. Edmund C. Hill's house. In August he became angry because the Trenton Trust & Safe Deposit Company had refused to make a loan to him, and remarked that the next time he was arrested for throwing stones through a window it would be for throwing them through the window of the trust company. Mr. Lee left the bank, and rode for an hour back and forth round the two sides of the trust company building. He afterwards sent to the officers of the trust company a copy of the letter written to Mr. Smith, already displayed. Later he broke the window of the trust company building, for which he was arrested. Just previous to this, Mr. Lee, who was building a house adjacent to the residence of Prof. Mumper, became aggrieved at the disappearance of some of his building material, and visited the professor to tell him that his (the professor's) boy had taken it. He became violent and profane, and, after being excluded from the professor's house, he got upon his bicycle and rode up and down in front of the house, and then wrote a postal and brought it to the front door, when the police, who had been telephoned for, came up and ordered him away. The next afternoon the petitioner came around the house and discharged a revolver, then looked up at the professor's house, shot again, and again directed his gaze towards the house. On the night of July 3d the windows of the professor's house were broken by stones which broke the glass, went across the room, and smashed the glass front of a china closet. On August 12th Mr. Lee was admitted to the asylum. On August 10th, while exercising in the yard, he broke 16 panes of glass by gathering up and throwing small stones. Upon his first entrance into' the institution, he had been very friendly with Dr. Cort, one of the physicians in charge of the institution. He suddenly charged him with being a party to the conspiracy against him; Mr. Cort's part being, as he asserted, in holding him in the institution. On November 10th the petitioner escaped from the institution, and was absent until November 21st. On December 10th he was permitted to attend his father's funeral, and escaped again, and did not return to the institution until March 14, 1903. During his last absence, he sent to Dr. Cort a series of letters, scurrilous, incoherent, and irrational. The first of these letters was written from Fortress Monroe, under date of December 14, 1902. It is as follows:
"Paul Cort, M. D.,
"Before God, I swear that you shall not escape this time. I go to influential relatives and friends in Richmond now, and the next time I open my campaign there will be no half way measures. Your doom is sealed. Before Apl. 1st, 1902, you will die insane and I will gloat over you.
"'For the prevision is allied.
Unto the thing so signified,
Or say, the foresight that waits,
Is the same genius that creates.
"Your Nemesis,
"Nerves out of order."
After that date he wrote letters telling Dr. Cort that the 1st of April was less than 10 weeks away; that there was no use of his resisting, "for the Devil, me [Lee], assisting, I will bring my prophecy to pass." On December 12, 1902, he sent a postal to Dr. Cort upon which was written by the petitioner: "1 have graven it within the hills; and my vengeance upon the dust within the rock. Before April 1st, 1903, you will die insane; after that your soul will be in Hell. For the prevision is allied," and so forth—signed, "Nerves out of order." Another postal was addressed to Dr. Cort on December 23, 1902; others on December 26th, 28th, 30th, on January 4th, 7th, and 13th. On February 12th he tells Dr. Cort that he has changed the date from April 1st to February 15th. He said: "When you read this, I will be in Trenton, disguised; because you see I'm a legal lunatic, one of whose crazy ideas is that he can bring his own prophecies to pass. I will try d—d hard anyway and if I don't get a chance before Feb. 15th, that don't end it. I know the country in that vicinity a d—d better than you do. You won't escape me and ha! ha! I'm 'bug house' and can't be punished for it. This will be the 'day of the dog' with a slight variation." On February 13th, he writes to him: "Trapped at last; Read your knife lie in the New York World, Sunday Feb. 15,
"Oh! The Dovil he has you, no use resisting, For you see the Devil has me assisting."
On January 22d, 1903, the petitioner had addressed to Dr. Cort a blue print upon which Mr. Lee had had photographed a letter written by the counsel of the Carr estate, the owner of the Phoenix Ironworks, to the counsel of Mr. Lee, and a letter from the latter gentleman to Mrs. Lee, inclosing the firstmentioned letter. Mr. Lee had had these letters, with another, photographed upon this blue print, one copy of which he sent, as already remarked, to Dr. Cort, and had written upon the blue print the words, "Not connected with Tom Thropp, Bughouse Cort, or other New Jersey Grafters, state Capitolsa Specialty." The letters and postals, the contents of which are not detailed, vary somewhat; many containing a repetition of the prophecies concerning Dr. Cort, similar in language to that already detailed. A copy of this same blue print was sent to Judge Vroom by Mr. Lee, and upon it was written by Mr. Lee words too offensive for reproduction. He also sent to Judge Vroom a letter on December 12, 1902, charging him with trying to ruin him, and telling him that "Hell was his doom"; and another letter, December 23, 1902, telling him that his (Lee's) picture undisgraced and Judge Vroom's name branded with infamy would be in the New York Herald on December 24th.
Dr. Ward who was investigating the question of the petitioner's sanity, after his admission to the hospital, asked Mr. Lee to give him a written statement of his side of the question. Mr. Lee did this on August 25th. In this statement he detailed his business, history, and circumstances which led him to believe in the existence of a conspiracy, and he closed by saying: "I personally handed to the Chief of Police at the Central Station on Saturday, August 9th, a copy of the alleged threats to kill Mr. Briggs, and at 8 a. m. on the morning of Monday August 11th, I walked in and around the Central Police Station whistling, 'There will be a hot time in the old town to night.' Why was it necessary for me to go out and smash I more windows before I could succeed in getting arrested at about 11 a. m. Monday, August 11th.
While the. petitioner was absent from the hospital, during the period already mentioned, he wrote to Dr. Ward, repeatedly, in the most abusive and absurd language. On December 15th he wrote him a letter, of which the following is the conclusion: "I have friends more powerful than anyone has ever dreamed of. They are already at work. Know this. I despise a snob. I have often been much amused by the boasting of some people in Trenton about their ancestry. This is the first time I have mentioned what follows—you may easily verify it—My son Linwod, 8 years of age, now in Trenton, is far and away ahead of any one in the State of New Jersey in the matter of lineage. He is the last oldest son of an unbroken line of oldest sons extending back in England, Century after century. Not one has ever died before perpetuating his line. Not one but who has possessed marvelous vitality. My great grand-father was a noted Dissenting Minister in England, His Forefather fought with Cromwell. Back after that it goes, not a shadow of a break as far as the history of England. And the strangest thing is that the oldest son only inherits the trait. From where did 1 get my fair hair, and cold steel blue eyes? From where did I get the courage you simply could not shake? Oh! you damned fool!"
On January 4th he writes: "Good morning Perjurer! your day of reckoning is close at baud."
On January 7th he wrote:
"-Wasn't it strange that your print was mailed at the same time the Gazette's print was mailed, only the Gazette's print had a lot of information written on it and was sent by special delivery so you could read it in the Gazette at the same time. Oh! you're up against it good and hard, Perjurer—The True American hits you next, and next Sunday's Herald—well it wont do a thing. W. J. L.
"You are the buggiest buggar in the bug bouse."
On February 1, 1903, he wrote, and upon the envelope was written: "Not connected with Briggs, Thropp, Vroom, Cort, Ward or other Grafters. State Capitols and Bughouse Grafts a specialty."
These are only parts of the series of letters and postal cards written to Dr. Cort and Dr. Ward.
The explanation made by the petitioner to Dr. Ward and others of his reasons for this window breaking was that he wished to be arrested and have a trial, so that he could introduce evidence to show the existence of this conspiracy. His explanation of the abusive letters sent to the different persons from New York was that he desired them to attempt to arrest him in New York, so that he could prove his sanity. He twice accosted Mr. Leslie C. Pierson on the street by the epithet of "Thief," and explained it by saying that he suspected Mr. Pierson of preventing his getting the contract for heating the schoolhouse, and said that he knew that he had put in bids for a portion of the same work, while an officer connected with the school department. On the street he also accosted State Treasurer Briggs with the words, "What did you meet, whom did you meet, and how did you meet them?" In giving an account of this, he said Mr. Briggs became very much excited, and whirled around and ran over to a policeman standing over at the corner. He suspected Mr. Briggs of interfering with his obtaining a contract for beating the Statehouse, and also with destroying his credit with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The State Treasurer had no connection whatever with the railroad company, and the suspicion only arose, as petitioner says, because he was an important political boss. While in the hospital the petitioner broke window panes, the window guards of his room, and the sleeping bunk, with which he barricaded his door.
These are only portions of the many incidents and earmarks of conduct which occurred during the period immediately preceding his sequestration in the asylum and since. In addition to these facts, the petitioner unfortunately has behind him a family history of an insane father and sister. Now, putting aside his conduct in the hospital, except his breaking the window panes, the testimony is convincing that Mr. Lee was afflictedwith mental disorder. I do not need the testimony of an expert in mental diseases to instruct me in this phase of the case. It is true that Dr. Pierce Clark, an expert who testified for Mr. Lee, upon being asked whether detached acts indicated insanity, said "that they did not, and that they were not incompatible with sanity." This expert said further "that all these acts were not Incompatible with sanity." Dr. Clark had sat through the first two days of the taking of testimony, and had heard the witnesses tell of the acts of Mr. Lee, and had heard the letters read, and upon being asked, upon cross-examination, "Do you say after this that your belief in his sanity is not shaken?" his answer was "that, in view of the explanation given to him (Dr. Clark), they would not prove that he was insane." Now, of course, it is obvious that a sane man may conclude that he is the subject of a conspiracy, upon facts which would fail to convince another man of the existence of such a condition of affairs. A man may break windows, and yet be sane. He may do it wantonly, mischievously, or maliciously. A man may write threatening letters or letters full of foul, obscene, and foolish matter, and yet be sane. But when a man of excellent business judgment and mental poise suddenly conceives that he is the subject of a malicious combination to ruin him, and the facts relied upon, and the men suspected as conspirators, are such that no sane man would believe in the existence of such a combination; when the same person suddenly enters upon a crusade against the windows of certain suspected persons, admittedly not for a malicious design, but for an entirely irrational purpose; when the same person, always theretofore decorous in habit and decent in language, suddenly takes to writing indecent and threatening letters—such changes in such a man's conduct means mental disease. How any one listening to the testimony which established this condition of affairs in this case, with the hundred other earmarks of irrational conduct, could say that such deportment was that of a sane man, I am utterly unable to conceive.
The only question, in my judgment, is whether this mental condition has vanished —whether the petitioner has been cured. That the petitioner is a man of great mental acuteness is apparent from his examination. The responsible position which he held for so many years with the New Jersey Steel & Iron Works exhibits his original possession of mental endowment of a high order. But intellectual activity is no shield against mental disease. It, indeed, often invites the terrible affliction. Upon this branch of the case, which involves the permanency of the type of Insanity with which Mr. Lee was afflicted, its curability, and the question of the petitioner's recovery, the testimony of the experts should be very instructive. Dr. Ward and Dr. Cort, officers of the hospital, both assert that the petitioner is still uncured. Dr. Clark says that, in his opinion, Mr. Lee is not now insane. The value of the testimony of Dr. Clark upon this point is destroyed, in my estimation, by his equally confident deposition that Mr. Lee never was insane. Dr. Williams, also brought to testify for the petitioner, swears that, in his opinion, Mr. Lee is now sane. This witness refused to give an opinion upon the past sanity of Mr. Lee, and his refusal was put upon the ground that he had not had an opportunity until quite recently to give Mr. Lee a physical examination. Upon the acts and letters of the petitioner introduced in evidence, he refuses to say that Mr. Lee was sane or insane. Now, it is to be observed that the type of insanity with which Mr. Lee was suffering, if insane at all, was mainly a type known as "paranoia." It consists in a delusion existing in the mind of a person that he is the subject of persecution. Dr. Williams was asked: "Q. You know of the mental disease called 'paranoia'? A. Yes. Q. Do you say that Mr. Lee is not suffering from that disease? A. In my opinion, he is not. Q. Do you know whether he has ever suffered from that disease? A. He would be still suffering from that disease, if he ever had suffered from It Q. It is a progressive disease? A. It is very likely to be. * ♦ * Q. Your judgment is that paranoia is incurable? A. In my judgment, and I believe in every one else's that are alienists, it is incurable." Now, as already observed, if Mr. Lee was insane, the prominent feature of his insanity was a delusion classed as "paranoia." The logical conclusion from Dr. Williams' assertion that he would be now suffering from this disease, if he ever had suffered from it, coupled with his assertion that he is not now suffering from it, is that, in Dr. Williams' judgment, he never has suffered from it. This puts him upon a footing with Dr. Clark. In respect to the curability of this phase of mental disorder there is practically a consensus of opinion among alienists. That opinion is that it is extremely persistent and progressive. Dr. Ward will not say that it is incurable, and I believe that a delusion of this nature, arising from physical disease, may, with returning health, be dissipated. But whatever the possibility of a cure, which it is hoped may exist, I am persuaded that the delusion under which Mr. Lee has labored has not been dislodged. The erratic letters written by Mr. Lee continued during the period of his absence from the hospital, up to nearly the time of his return, on March 14th last. His own examination as a witness on this hearing appears to me to exhibit the presence of an existing irrational notion that a conspiracy did exist, directed against him. In his testimony, he, with remarkable acuteness and ingenuity, explained the facts upon which he rested his notionthat the various gentlemen whose names had been brought Into the case had persecuted him. Now, it is true that he says that he has modified his views as to two of these gentlemen, but it is to be observed that in no other respects has he changed his mental attitude. He gives his reason why he broke the windows of Mr. Harry Hill and Mr. Edmund O. Hill and of the bank, and in the bowling alley of the asylum; why he called "Thief" to one, and insulted another in the streets; why he thought State Treasurer Briggs had ruined his credit with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and defeated his bid for work at the Statehouse; and why the school superintendent had helped to wrong him out of his contract for heating a schoolhouse. But his purpose in making these explanations seems to have been merely to vindicate the rationality of his conduct. There is not an expression in his testimony that indicates that he had changed his views respecting the existence of a scheme to ruin him. It is true that he admits that his letter to Mr. Smith, announcing his conditional intention to murder the State Treasurer, was a mistake. But he does not even now admit that the facts then within his knowledge were *an insufficient foundation for his belief that that officer was conspiring against him. So of all the rest of his conceptions—he does not say that he is now satisfied that his former belief in the existence of a conspiracy had no rational foundation to support it. He does not admit that his reasoning was false and irrational. On the other hand, what he says is that it was correct and rational; and he gives the facts within his knowledge at that time, as vindicating his belief, and he gives the purpose which induced his acts, as proof of the rationality of his conduct Now, if his belief and his acts indicated mental disease then, and if he presently sees no irrationality in such belief and conduct his standpoint respecting his own conduct has in no degree changed. It follows that under the same conditions he would be likely to reenact the same performances. This exhibits the persistence of an irrational mental condition. Therefore I am driven to the conclusion that the petitioner is not yet cured of his mental disorder.
Considerable testimony was introduced respecting his treatment while at the hospital. The petitioner asserts that he was cruelly punished; that he was confined in an illsmelling room; that he was further confined by a camisole, which restrained the movements of his arms; and that he was assaulted by the keepers. This testimony was admitted upon the ground that it tended to exhibit a provocation for his acts while in the hospital, which acts were relied upon to prove Insane conduct. Now, it appears that he was confined in a room with an offensive odor, resulting from defective plumbing. The defective condition was rectified upon his complaint, but the correction seems to have been dilatory. In respect to the assault, the testimony is contradictory; the keepers insisting that, at the time when the petitioner alleges he was assaulted, they were trying to reduce him to obedience, after he had barred the door of his room with his bunk. The restraint by the use of the camisole was obviously punitive as well as restrictive, but whether this was necessary, in an institution like the hospital, to preserve discipline, is a question not relevant. In an institution containing over 1,000 patients, necessarily under the immediate control of keepers, whose acts it is impossible for the officers to keep constantly in sight, there is, I have no doubt, cruelty practiced, in a small way. It requires a man of great intelligence and great mental poise and self-restraint to appreciate that insulting acts are the product of irresponsible minds, and to be able to restrain his anger when his authority is defied. The fret of mind caused by restraint upon one of Mr. Lee's temperament, under the conditions indicated, may not be calculated to allay the nervous excitement which is involved in many phases of mental disease. These conditions, however, do not, in my Judgment, account for the conduct of the petitioner. That can alone be accounted for upon the ground of the existence of mental disease.
Having arrived at this conclusion, my functions cease. I would be glad to restore the petitioner to his family if it could be done with safety to himself and to others. Perhaps, under other surroundings, his recovery, if he is curable at all, would be speedier. If I was clear upon this point, which I am not, I would possess no power to act upon my convictions. My only duty, under the statute, after arriving at the conclusions which I have announced, is to remand the petitioner to the State Hospital.