FEIGNED INSANITY. 
• < • 
CASE OF JOSEPH WALTZ. 
[From the American Journal of Insanity, for July, 1874.] FEIGNED INSANITY. 
CASE OF JOSEPH WALTZ. 
[From the American Journal of Insanity, for July, 1874.] 
[We present this as an important and interesting case in the 
jurisprudence of insanity, and also an instance of persistent feign- 
ing. The history of the case and the trial are so fully stated by 
Gov. Dix, that further elaboration would seem to be unnecessary. 
-Eds.] 
STATE OF NEW YORK: 
Executive Chamber, 1 
Albany, May 4th, 1874. ) 
MEMOIR OF THE CASE OF JOSEPH WALTZ, THE MURDERER, 
TO BE FILED WITH THE OTHER PAPERS RELATING TO HIS 
CRIME, TRIAL AND EXECUTION. 
Joseph Waltz, of Athens, Greene County, as was sub- 
sequently proved by his trial, killed, at his father's 
house in that town, Herman Holcher of Albany, an 
itinerant scissors-grinder, on the first day of May, 1873. 
After the arrest and imprisonment of Waltz, when 
certain examinations had led to indubitable evidence of 
the crime, and when the facts disclosed had been com- 
municated to him, and he was taken to the house in 
which the murder was committed, he made a full con. 
fession, giving a detailed account of the circumstances 
attending the homicide, and the steps he had taken to 
elude detection. He was subsequently taken over the 
farm, and he pointed out the different places where the 
body of the murdered man and his property had been 
concealed, and were then found, thus verifying the truth 
of his statements. He also confessed that he had plun- 
dered school-houses at different times, and the books 
were found where he had secreted them. His conduct 2 
in the perpetration of these crimes, as described by him- 
self, indicates deliberation, coolness, cunning, and moral 
depravity. That he was fully aware in killing the seis- 
sors-grinder of the atrocity of the act and of his account- 
ability for it, is manifest from his own statement. His 
conduct until his arrest, sixteen days after the murder, 
was that of a man in full possession of all his faculties. 
He made bargains, transacted business, and kept careful 
accounts of his payments and receipts. 
The trial commenced on the 28th of February, 1874, 
and terminated on the 14th of March, ensuing. 
Six or eight weeks after his imprisonment, when he 
had shown some symptoms of insanity, real or feigned, 
a paper was prepared for the purpose of testing them, 
containing false indications of mental derangement, some 
of them of the most extravagant character, and was left 
at his cell; and he immediately began to manifest the 
same indications, persevering in them at intervals to the 
last. This paper was excluded at the trial, as it could 
not be proved that he had read it. Numerous circum- 
stances justify the belief that his insanity was feigned. 
Among them were the facts stated by the presiding 
judge as follows in his account of the case now on file: 
" Waltz acted according to the symptoms indicated in 
that paper. On the first day of the trial he was furious 
in the court room. That night Dr. Mackey told him, 
(as Mackey reported to me,) that he was hurting his 
case, and from that time to Thursday noon of the second 
week, Waltz was quiet and peaceable. He assumed 
through the trial an air of quiet indifference. As he sat 
directly in front of me, so that whenever I raised my 
head I could see him square in the face and detecting 
frequently, as I thought, a most anxious look toward a 
witness or the jury, at noon of Thursday I requested 
Dr. Mackey to tell him that his behavior was almost 3 
too good, and that it would be better for him to show 
some symptoms of insanity. This was done, and when 
Waltz came into the court that afternoon and the next 
day his acts of fury were repeated." On the trial four 
physicians who had the prisoner under observation for 
several months, at the instance of the District Attorney, 
were examined on the part of the prosecution. Three 
were unanimous in the opinion that his insanity was 
feigned. The fourth said in regard to his paroxysms of 
fury: "Taking everything into consideration I have 
made up my mind that these spells were feigned." He 
also said, " I have not seen enough of him to make me 
conclude that he is insane; I don't call him insane." 
Two were examined for the defence, and they were of 
opinion that he was not perfectly sane, though their 
testimony was less positive than that of the physicians 
who were examined for the prosecution. 
The jury, after an able, impartial and elaborate 
charge by the presiding judge, found the prisoner guilty 
of murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced to 
be hanged on the first day of May, 1874, the anniver- 
sary of the day on which the crime was committed. In 
his charge to the jury, Judge Westbrook said that the 
burden of proving the prisoner sane devolved upon the 
prosecution, that the people must satisfy the jury be- 
yond all reasonable doubt that the prisoner understood 
his act, and that he had reason, perception and under- 
standing sufficient to know that the laws of God and 
the land said he should not do it. He was defended 
with signal ability. The jury were out less than an 
hour, and it is stated in the report of the trial that their 
verdict was agreed on in fifteen minutes after they had 
retired. 
On the first day of April, Judge Westbrook, who pre- 
sided at the trial, called on me at the Executive Cham- 
ber, and gave me a full history of the case. He did not 4 
question the sanity of the prisoner, but he had previ- 
ously suggested, by a letter written in behalf of himself 
and the judges who were on the bench with him at the 
trial, that a commission of experts should be appointed, 
as authorized by the statute, to examine the prisoner 
and decide the question of his sanity. I acceded to his 
suggestion, which had been previously made in other 
quarters; and after a careful examination of the judge's 
notes of the testimony, I requested Dr. John Ordro- 
naux, the State Commissioner in Lunacy, and Dr. John 
P. Gray, Superintendent of the Utica Insane Asylum, to 
make a personal examination of the prisoner and a thor- 
ough investigation of his case as presented by the tes- 
timony, and to communicate the result to me. Their 
report is as follows : 
To the Hon. John A. Dix, Governor of the State of New York: 
Sir :-The undersigned, a commission appointed by 
you to inquire into the sanity of Joseph Waltz, now 
under sentence of death in the county jail at Catskill, in 
Greene county, respectfully report: 
That they examined the said Waltz jointly, and sep- 
arately, on the 15th day of April, inst., in a careful man- 
ner, and took statements from Drs. Phillips, Jewell, 
Mackey and Wetmore touching the substantive matters 
to which they had testified upon his trial; also from 
Deputy Sheriff Olmstead and the father of the prisoner. 
They have further read the testimony in the case, as 
furnished them by your Excellency from stenographer's 
notes, together with the notes of Judge Westbrook, the 
presiding judge, at the trial, and acting upon the inform- 
ation thus received they have arrived at the conclu- 
sion that the said Joseph Waltz is not now insane, and 
was not at the date of the homicide committed by him. 
They further submit a record herewith of their per- 
sonal examination of the prisoner, together with the 5 
facts bearing upon his case as obtained from him, and 
their conclusions thereupon. 
The prisoner, Joseph Waltz, is a young man twenty- 
four years of age, of medium size and physically well 
developed, who has always lived with his father upon 
a farm, having an interest in it. His father states that 
his health has always been good, and that nothing un- 
usual has ever been noticed in his conduct; that he 
was a good worker, spending his time at home; a great 
reader and attentive to all business matters, being par- 
ticularly well informed in the culture of grapes and 
similar small fruits, to which purpose the farm was 
mostly devoted. He is now in good health, even after 
a year's confinement. 
We found him in a spacious cell, chained by his 
ankles, the floor mostly covered with pictoral papers- 
a few books, including a Catholic mission book and an 
English dictionary lying upon his bed; also a blank book 
in which he was writing when we entered. Upon the 
wall were drawings of geometrical symbols such as the 
square, the circle and triangle; as, also, a balloon, and 
passages of scripture and snatches of rhymes, partly 
original, partly quoted. The ceiling in one corner was 
dotted with lamp-black. 
On accosting him, he stared at us, made grimaces, 
looked about the room, but gave no answers to ques- 
tions, simply uttering a guttural sound; getting up 
from his bed, then getting on his knees, then laying 
down with his face to the wall. We were silent for 
some minutes. He then turned, and in a confused man- 
ner asked if we lived in Catskill? Upon interrogating 
him, we received the following as some of his answers, 
and which are illustrative of his replies for about an 
hour and a half, during which he frequently renewed 
the grimaces, and at one time reached under his bed, 6 
brought out a piece of iron about eighteen inches long, 
suddenly rose to his feet, held it in his right hand, and 
stood in a menacing attitude: " Don?t know how old I 
am ; don?t know mother's name ; don't know father's.) 
only that it's Waltz ; don't know what church father 
goes to, think it's Lunarian ; feel queer some times ; be- 
long to the spirits of the moon ; I am married to the 
queen of lALnarians; she came in one night last week 
and said I should be king of the Lunarians'' Being 
asked what he meant by Lunarians, he replied it was 
about the moon, took up the dictionary and pointed out 
the word Lunary and said the word " Lunarian comes 
from that." " L was tried in summer; wore an over- 
coat ; tried in an immense crowd ; thousands of people ; 
not in the court-house', never, knew of a court-house', 
never saw one ; went through the door with supernatural 
strength', counsel? counsel? L had no counsel; no 
judge was there, but a man was on the throne, who talked 
too much?' He then said to one of the commissioners, 
" Lou are the governor" and to the other, " Lou are a 
judge?' He denied ever coming to Catskill, or doing 
any business. Said his mother bought his clothes for 
him. In reply to a question, he said, " I killed a man 
once, oh, yes, he was a good man, he never swore, never 
got drunk; Lnever made a confession?' 
Being finally told that there was no necessity in his 
feigning before us, and so stupidly, he instantly replied, 
" Feigning ? Feigning what ? " Being further told 
that this assumption of entire ignorance of the simplest 
things and complete loss of memory, were inconsistent 
with his state of health, intelligent appearance, and the 
books and papers he had about him; as also with his 
being engaged in writing in them when w'e entered and 
the prompt use of the dictionary, he said, "Are you 
strangers? L don't know whether L ought to talk to 7 
you?" And, on being asked whether he was acting 
under the advice of counsel, he said, " Judge Osborn is 
my counsel', but I can tell you" 
He went on partly in answer to questions, and partly 
voluntarily, to give an account of the homicide, and 
other acts. He first said, " The trial was conducted in 
the most tedious manner possible" and "my counsel sat 
there objecting" I wanted to bring the proceedings to 
the right place; I donit think I ever spoke to my counsel 
on the trial?'1 Resuming he spoke of sveral witnesses 
at the trial; said his mother had not been examined 
there, but had at the coroner's inquest; spoke of Dr. 
Mackey as having pretended to be his friend, but 
"proved a treacherous villain;" said " Dr. Phillips was 
his friend." In answer to questions, as to whether he 
knew that a Commission was coming to examine him, he 
said, " J/y sister told me." 
In describing the homicide he said he had known 
Holcher, that he had never thought of the deed till the 
evening, while reading, and after Holcher had gone to 
bed; it made him feel queer, sort of warm. I went in 
and looked at the man, and went back and prayed against 
it and read something in the Testament, but the evil 
spirit prompted me to it; I then went to the woodshed, 
got the hatchet and went into my own room, and then 
went to Holcher1 s and struck four blows ; I think then 1 
felt faint, for I found myself upon the floor ; then I got 
up, rolled him up and carried him out to the barn" He 
then paused and afterward resumed as follows: " I 
thought if I put him in the barn, Til be too much 
frightened to get him out, and by superhuman strength 
I carried him to the fence and covered him with cobble 
stones ; I went back and took the machine farther up the 
fence on the other side; if I could go up there I could 
show you on the ground better" 8 
He went on to detail that in the morning, he told his 
father that Holcher had left in the night, taking a 
blanket, and had had nose bleed which made the blood; 
that his father went to Catskill to have Holcher ar- 
rested ; that he had burned the machine that day, and 
that he had buried the body that night. Next day he 
wrote the letter put on the telegraph pole, and that 
night took it up with the things towards Coxsackie. 
He afterward secreted the books that he had taken from 
the school-house. Being asked why he did so, he re- 
plied, " I was af raid they would make suspicion." 
When asked how he felt then about it, he said he 
felt bad. On being asked if he had slept, he said, " It 
took me two nights to do these things." When asked if 
he knew it was wrong, he said, " Oh, yes ; but I dolt 
know the way I did it" and when asked why, replied, 
" The spirit prompted me-the lad spirit-because bad 
spirits drag us down, good spirits carry us up." And, 
on being asked, do you mean a spirit there which you 
saw, replied, " No, spirits have no bodies, they control 
us, they may appear as a flame? 
Did you see a spirit of flame, he was asked, "No,'7 
was his reply. It was said you prayed two nights, how 
was that ? " Oh, yes j I prayed more nights than two, 
and I believe God has forgiven me." Being asked why 
he thought so, he answered, " Father O'1 Driscoll said he 
would, and I believe I was? 
Being questioned about entering school-houses, he 
said: " Ifirst went at night and looked in at the win- 
dows, and I saw a clock on the desk of the pedagogue, 
and it was twelve o'clock? What do you mean by a 
pedagogue? "A school-master? Continuing he said, 
" I went into the window, got the books, and left a candle 
on the floor ' went to another school-house and got some 
books there, and coming back, saw the first one burning. 9 
Had the boohs in a bag? When was this ? " A year, or 
a year and a half ago? Did you tell this ? " No, I 
didn?? Did you plough the lot after you buried Hot- 
elier ? " The lot was ploughed? Did you read the books 
you took ? " Yes, and used the dictionary? 
On questioning him about his writings, he said that 
since he had been in jail, he had written yards of poetry, 
which people had promised to have published in 
the paper. That many came to look at him, and some 
said how well he looks, and others, how horrid he looks, 
and others said, he looks like a brute, and others, again, 
stood around the room and looked at him without 
speaking. 
He then admitted that he had made a confession be- 
fore. We showed him the annexed slip, and asked him 
if one similar to that had ever been handed him. He 
did not reply. Asked him if the doctor had not handed 
him that. He said, "No, some one else? Afterward 
confessed that he had seen it. It is as follows: 
" Signs of Insanity.-A vacant stare at some part of 
the room as though the person saw something; scream- 
ing aloud occasionally as though they saw something 
like an enemy, an angel, a demon or something terrible, 
accompanied by apparent fright. Skulking in a corner 
furious and breaking every thing to pieces within reach; 
resisting every effort to quiet them; turning away the 
face as though not wishing to be seen; frothing at the 
mouth ; tearing the clothes; biting at their clothes and 
even biting their own fingers. When lying down a 
disposition to lie on the left side, or throwing the right 
hand over the head." 
Mr. Olmstead, the deputy-jailor, stated that after this 
slip had been passed into his cell, he exhibited the very 
symptoms described in the paper, and Dr. Mackey states 10 
that on his telling the prisoner on the trial that he was 
overdoing his part in the exhibition of violence, he be- 
came quiet and self-possessed, and, on afterward remark- 
ing to him that he was erring in the opposite direction, 
he resumed his eccentric and violent demeanor. Mr. 
Olmstead further states, that the prisoner was quite 
natural and communicative before we went in to ex- 
amine him. 
We then proceeded to the farm and examined the 
stone structure alluded to on the trial in company with 
his father, who stated that his son had built it years 
before as a place to sit in and read. He also pointed 
out a wooden barn which he said his son had planned 
and built with his own hands. 
We saw the prisoner again upon our return. He 
manifested none of the seeming stupidity which he 
had previously. Asked if we had seen his father and 
sister, and was moved to tears. Asked "if we couldnlt 
get him out? Said "it was short to the first of May j 
wouldrit minded being hung at first, but it was so long, 
and he had suffered so much! He again shed tears. 
He then said, " If you help me with the Governor, I will 
give you all I have. I have between four and five hun- 
dred dollars in money, and an interest in the farm, and 
father will add to it." This oiler he repeated to us sep- 
arately in our subsequent examination. Just as we left, 
he said, "Mow, if you can do anything with the Gov- 
ernor, I will do what I have said? and added, " Can I 
not write to the Governor f " 
We were informed by his father that up to the time 
of Joseph's arrest he noticed no .change in him what- 
ever, and that he had not the slightest suspicion of his 
guilt. He denied having said to Mrs. Holcher that he 
had not seen her husband this spring, (meaning 1873,) 
but said he told her he had not seen him this spring, for 11 
fourteen days. Two days after this interview the pris- 
oner was arrested. We were further informed, and it 
is in evidence, that for some six weeks after his incarce- 
ration Waltz was entirely natural in his demeanor, and 
only began to show peculiarities in conduct after hav 
ing been informed that insanity was his sole hope of 
escape. 
He appeared very much moved when told that we 
could hold out no hope of his escaping punishment. We 
spoke to him of the future and his accountability, and 
he fully comprehended all that was said upon this sub- 
ject, and the nature and quality of his crime, which he 
deeply regretted, saying with apparent contrition and 
emphasis, weeping, " Oh, I never, never could do such 
an act again? After spending about four hours in ex- 
amining him, we left, fully satisfied that he had been 
feigning insanity, with imperfect knowledge of its symp- 
toms, and led by the idea that it was the only avenue 
of escape from conviction and punishment. When 
asked whether he did not think the punishment was 
just, he replied, " That to hang him would not bring 
Holcher bach. That Holcher was in heaven because he 
was a good man? 
CONCLUSION. 
From the foregoing voluntary and repeated confessions 
of the prisoner; from the evidence adduced upon the 
trial; from the statements of his father, and from a per- 
sonal examination of him under the light of past and 
present habitual demeanor, there is no escape from the 
conclusion that the prisoner, at the date of the homi- 
cide committed by him, possessed all the elements of 
legal and moral responsibility, for, he fully knew and 
comprehended the true nature and consequences of the 
act he was about to commit. He knew it to be both 12 
wrong in itself and a wrong to his victim, since he suc- 
cessfully resisted its commission for a while, by prayer 
and deliberation upon its enormity, thus evincing, by 
this power to choose between two courses of conduct, 
that he was a free moral agent. Therefore we are of the 
opinion that the homicide was the act of a sane mind, 
knowing that the act it was about to commit was a 
crime; intending so to commit it, and, with full power 
of refraining from, or executing its wicked purpose, de- 
liberately preferring to do the latter. 
All of which is respectfully submitted, 
JNO. ORDRONAUX, 
JOHN P. GRAY. 
Albany, April 18th, 1874. 
All the requirements of the law having thus been 
complied with, and the prisoner having been unhesi- 
tatingly declared sane, after a personal examination by 
two experienced experts, whose conclusions seemed to 
me to be fully sustained by the testimony produced at 
the trial, I announced to the sheriff that I should not 
interfere with the execution of the sentence. 
I do not doubt that the public judgment was in ac- 
cord with this decision, and that there would have 
been a universal acquiescence in its justice, but for the 
subsequent unwarrantable interference of Dr. A. O. 
Kellogg, an Assistant Physician of the Hudson River 
State Hospital, in setting up his opinion against 
1st. The verdict of the jury. 
2d. The opinion of the expert commissioners, and 
3d. The action of the Executive in conformity 
thereto. 
It appears, by papers deposited in the Executive De- 
partment, that Dr. Kellogg, by request, visited the pris- 
oner, in jail, on two different occasions before the trial, 
and came to the conclusion that he was insane, that the 13 
doctor was not produced as a witness and submitted to 
an examination as to the ground on which his opinion 
had been formed, but that he gave publicity to it through 
the newspaper press after the examination by experts, 
and after the final decision of the Governor was com- 
municated to him, even going so far as to say, "on the 
best authority," that there would be a new trial. 
It further appears, First, that he addressed a letter to 
the Executive, which, through accident, did not reach 
its destination until after the execution of Waltz, rec 
ommending the very examination by disinterested ex 
perts, whose decision he afterwards sought to impeach, 
by the publication of an adverse opinion. Second, as 
late as the 24th of April, only seven days before the 
time appointed for the execution of the sentence, he 
wrote a letter in which he said, " I have, by urgent so- 
licitation, induced one of the most able, honest and ex- 
perienced experts in this country to visit Waltz to-mor- 
row, and gave me his opinionadding, with notable 
confidence in himself, " whatever this opinion may be, 
it can not change my own." 
The attempt at this juncture to set up an independ- 
ent and self-constituted tribunal to create distrust to- 
wards the public authorities, and to found a precedent 
for interfering with the course of legal procedure, upon 
the basis of a disagreement of opinions, can have no jus- 
tification. It is especially unjustifiable in one holding 
office under the State, the action of whose authorities 
he thus assumes to impeach. 
The "able, honest and experienced expeit," to whose 
opinion Dr. Kellogg attached so little value, unless it 
coincided with his own, was Dr. Brown, Superintendent 
of the Bloomingdale Asylum, who was followed in the 
examination of Waltz by Dr. Choate, formerly of the 
Insane Asylum at Taunton, Mass. After a single ex- 14 
amination in his cell, apart from each other, they con- 
curred in thinking the prisoner insane. A day or two 
after the examination of Waltz by Dr. Brown, the lat- 
ter had an interview with Judge Westbrook in the city 
of New York, and notwithstanding the doctor's opinion, 
the judge said in a letter to a friend, that the interview 
confirmed him " in the belief that Waltz understood the 
act he committed." It is this clear understanding of the 
nature of the crime at the time it is committed, that 
constitutes in the eye of the law the test of responsi- 
bility. In another letter after the execution, he said: 
" I am fully convinced of his sanity, and could mention 
to you many little things which convinced me he was 
playing a part. The concluding scene in the drama is 
to me equally explicable. The sullenness and intense 
malice proved a comprehension of the situation, and the 
dogged desperation of a man who was conscious of his 
fate, which every person around him thought was just." 
Dr. Choate's opinion is dated the day preceding 
Waltz's execution, immediately before which the latter 
made a murderous and fatal attack on his keeper, under 
circumstances showing deliberation, a perfect knowl- 
edge of his condition, a coolness of purpose and an anx- 
iety to escape his impending fate, utterly irreconcilable 
with a state of mind, in which the sense of moral re- 
sponsibility is wanting. After disabling the keeper, he 
took possession of his keys and his pistol, which he was 
prevented from using by the prompt discovery of his 
attempt to escape. All hope being at an end, he died 
with that stolid indifference often manifested by great 
criminals. It is a painful reflection whether this final 
act of desperation and brutal violence may not be due 
in some degree to the persistent attempts which were 
made to take the case out of the established course of 
the law, by encouraging in the criminal, hopes which 
were to be disappointed at the last moment. 15 
The laws of the State are framed with a merciful con- 
sideration for persons accused of crime. No man can be 
convicted except upon the clearest evidence of his guilt , 
and a unanimous verdict of a jury. If, after conviction, 
there is any doubt as to his moral accountability, the 
law authorizes the Executive to appoint commissioners 
to examine him and determine the question. When all 
these acts have been performed under the highest offi- 
cial responsibility, there should be an end of contro- 
versy, or at least of opposition to the determination of 
the law. To allow the finality of a decision thus 
solemnly made to be impeached by unauthorized, ex- 
parte or clandestine investigations, is to overthrow the 
orderly administration of justice, and to involve the ad- 
judications of the law in endless confusion. 
The duty of the Executive in cases of capital pun- 
ishment is of the most painful character. There is no 
convict, however atrocious his crimes, who has not im- 
portunate advocates with the pardoning power to re- 
prieve him, to commute his sentence, or remit his pun- 
ishment ; and the cases are already numerous in which 
murderers are maintained in State Institutions, warmed, 
clad and fed at the public expense, furnished with 
books and medical and spiritual attendance, with every- 
thing, in a word, which can contribute to their moral 
and physical comfort, exempt from all chastisement ex- 
cept the restraint of their personal freedom, while the 
widowed wives and orphaned children of their victims 
are fighting out the hard battle of life unaided, the ob- 
jects as a general rule, of little else than a barren and 
profitless sympathy. 
With these two phases of the administration of retri- 
butive justice constantly before him, however trying in 
some instances may be the position of the Executive, 
with whom the pardoning power is deposited, he ought 16 
not to be expected, without the most overpowering 
reasons, to interpose for the purpose of setting aside the 
well-weighed determinations of juries and courts. 
JOHN A. DIX. 
Albany, N. Y., May 2, 1874. 
His Excellency John A. Hix: 
Sin:-We have this day examined the brain, and its 
membranes, in the case of Joseph Waltz, executed at 
Catskill, May 1, and find them sound. 
JOHN P. GRAY, 
Superintendent N. Y. State Lunatic Asylum. 
JOHN SWINBURNE, M. D. 
New York State Lunatic Asylum, 1 
Utica, May 12, 1874. j 
To the Hon. John A. Dix, Governor : 
Sir:-At the request of Dr. John P. Gray, Medical 
Superintendent of this Asylum, I have made a general 
and microscopic examination of the brain of Joseph 
Waltz, and find it entirely free from disease. 
THEOD. DEECKE, 
Special Pathologist. N. Y. State Lunatic Asylum. 
The following is from the very able charge of Judge 
Westbrook to the jury, in which it will be seen he lays 
down the law as at present interpreted by our courts, re- 
lating to persons alleged to be insane at the time of 
committing a crime. 
But what is insanity ? what must be the mental condition of the 
party who is to be excused on account of that mental condition ? 
How much intellect, understanding, judgment and comprehension 
must he have to make him amenable to the law. This, gentlemen, 
is a question for the court, and as the court lays down that law to 
you, you will be guided and governed by it in your deliberations. 17 
Questions of fact belong to you; questions of law to the court. 
Trench not upon the prerogative of the court and the court -will 
be careful to leave to you that which the law makes it your duty 
to decide. What, then, I repeat, must be the mental condition of 
the person who has done the act, otherwise unlawful, which will 
excuse him for the commission of such act ? 
The term " Insanity " is a somewhat vague one. There are dif- 
ferent degrees of mental power in a healthy person. There are 
various degrees of capacity among persons whose intellect may be 
slightly impaired. In regard to the civil affairs of life, that act is 
a good and lawful one which is done by a person who understands 
the act. The law can make no difference between the talented and 
those who are not, in regard to the execution of a deed or a will, 
so long as the person of the lesser intellect has enough capacity to 
understand and comprehend the act which he does. And so in re- 
gard to crime. The person who comprehends crime in all its 
monstrosity is liable. The person whose intellect is less than that, 
so long as he has sufficient comprehension to know that the act is 
wrong and is forbidden, and will be punished by the law, is 
equally responsible; no more so and no less so. The law, gen- 
tlemen, does not recognize insanity as a defense, so long as the per- 
son understands and comprehends the act. That the person pre- 
tends he is impelled by an irresistible and overwhelming impulse 
to commit the act will not make a defense. It will not do for a 
person to say " I was tempted to crime and was overcome by 
temptation." If he knows the act is wrong and is forbidden, he 
must resist the temptation, and if he commits the act he does it at 
his peril. Neither will it do to excuse the commission of crime be- 
cause a person believes in spirits. Belief in spirits may be evi- 
dence for a jury to found its judgment upon in regard to the 
understanding and comprehension by the party accused of the act 
and crime. But belief in spirits of itself-that the party sees or 
hears spirits-that spirits whisper to him and bid him to do this 
act-that of itself is no defense provided the judgment and rea- 
son which God gave to him and spared to him, declare to his con- 
sciousness that the act was wrong, and that the laws of God and 
man forbid it. 
This, gentlemen, is no new doctrine; it is as old as the country 
from which we have borrowed the most of our learning and our 
law. I refer now to the law of England. And that you may see 
what the law of that country is upon that question, let me call 
your attention to some extracts from that law which I have care- 
fully culled: 18 
" To justify the acquittal of a person indicted for murder on the 
ground of insanity, the jury must be satisfied that he was incapa- 
ble of judging between right and wrong ; and that, at the time of 
committing the act, he did not consider that it was an offense 
against the laws of God and nature." 
This opinion was given by Lord Lindhurst in the case of the 
King against O fiord. Another Judge thus says : 
" Where, upon a trial for murder the plea of insanity is set up, 
the question for the jury is, ' did the prisoner do the act under a 
delusion, believing it to bo other than it was?' If he knew what 
he was doing, and that it was likely to cause death, and was con- 
trary to the laws of God and man, and that the law directed that 
persons who did such acts should be punished, he is guilty of 
murder." 
This was the opinion of Martin, J., in the case of the Queen 
against Townley. And again, 
"The circumstance of a person having acted under an irresisti- 
ble influence to the commission of homicide is no defense, if at the 
time he committed the act, he knew he was doing what was wrong." 
That is the opinion of Bramhall in Queen against Haynel. The 
same doctrine has been enunciated in various States of this Union. 
" In a trial for murder a charge ' that the true test of insanity is, 
whether the accused, at the time of the commission of the crime, 
was conscious that he was doing what he ought not to do,' is 
proper." 
" The test of such insanity in criminal cases, as will excuse the 
commission of a crime, is whether the accused, at the commission 
thereof, was conscious that he was doing what he ought not to do." 
That was held in the case of the People against Hebson, 17, Cal- 
ifornia. 
1 N. J., 196, the State against Spencer. 
" It is not every kind or degree of insanity which exempts from 
punishment. If the accused understood the nature of the act, if he 
knew it was wrong and it deserved punishment, he is responsible." 
This is the case of the U. S against McGue. 1. Curtis, Ct. Ct. 
Reps. 
" If a man has capacity and reason sufficient to enable him to 
distinguish between right and wrong as to a particular act, for the 
commission of which he is on trial-if lie has knowledge and con- 
sciousness of the act he is doing and that it is wrong and will de- 
serve punishment, he is, in the eye of the law, of sound mind and 
memory, and therefore criminally responsible for the act." 19 
And, gentlemen, the same doctrine lias been enunciated in a 
recent case in the Court of Appeals of this State, which is our 
highest court, and whose decisions must be our guide in the deter- 
mination of this one. The case is reported in 52 N. Y. (Flanagan 
vs. the People.) The prisoner was convicted in the General Sessions 
of New York city of the crime of murder in the second degree, he 
having been indicted for murder in the first degree for killing his 
wife. The counsel for the prisoner made these points: 
"No man can commit a crime, although he has understanding, 
if he has no mill. The right and wrong test as to the contemplated 
act is not favored. The power of choosing right from wrong is as 
essential to legal responsibility as the mere capacity of distinguish- 
ing right from wrong." 
That is to say, the prisoner's counsel said he must have the power 
to choose ; that is, to determine what he would or would not do; 
whether he should do the act or whether he should not do it, and 
this was just as important in determining whether he was insane 
or not as his power to distinguish between the right and the wrong 
of the act. In other words the counsel for the prisoner claimed 
that though the prisoner might have reason enough to tell him that 
the act was wrong-that the laws of the land and God forbid it - 
that if he had no will to resist the influence which bade him do the 
act, then he was crazy and insane, and not criminally responsible. 
It presents to a certain extent one of the very propositions which 
the counsel for the prisoner has raised here. It presents almost 
the identical question which is raised by the confession of the pris- 
oner in the case. Now what did the Court say in this case ? They 
refer in the first place to the case of Willis against the People. 
That was a case in which I was concerned and where the rule in 
this State was pretty thoroughly settled. The Court of Appeals 
through Andrews, J., says: 
" That the test of responsibilit y for criminal acts, where unsound- 
ness of mind is interposed as a defense, is the capacity of the de- 
fendant to distinguish between right and wrong, at the time of and 
with respect to the act, which is the subject of the inquiry." 
Of course he must be able to intelligently distinguish between 
the right and the wrong; he must have a comprehension and 
knowledge that the act is forbidden; it must be present to his 
mind at the time he resolves to do it. But if that intelligence and 
comprehension be present--if there is a voice within him saying, 
" Do not this act," and he understands that if he does it it is wrong, 
and the law will punish him, then if he does it, he is responsible, 20 
even though he may claim that some mysterious influence or spirit 
urges him on and destroys his power to resist. I further read: 
"We are asked in this case to introduce a new element into the 
rule of criminal responsibility in cases of alleged insanity, and to 
hold that the power of choosing right from wrong is as essential to 
legal responsibility as the capacity of distinguishing between them; 
and that the absence of the former is consistent with the presence of 
the latter. 
" The argument proceeds upon the theory that there is a form of 
insanity in which the faculties are so disordered and deranged that 
a man, though he perceives the moral quality of his acts, is unable 
to control them, and is urged by some mysterious pressure to the 
commission of acts, the consequences of which he anticipates but 
can not avoid. 
" Whatever medical or scientific authority there may be for this 
view, it has not been accepted by courts of law. 
" The vagueness and uncertainty of the inquiry which -would be 
opened, and the manifest danger of introducing the limitation 
claimed into the rule of responsibility, in cases of crime, may well 
cause courts to pause before assenting to it. 
" Indulgence in evil passions weakens the restraining power of 
the will and conscience; and the rule suggested would be the cover 
for the commission of crime and its justification. The doctrine 
that a criminal act may be excused upon the notion of an irresist- 
ible impulse to commit it, where the offender has the ability to dis- 
cover his legal and moral duty in respect to it, has no place in the 
law. Rolfe, B., in Rogers vs. Allunt, where, on the trial of an in- 
dictment for poisoning, the defendant was alleged to have acted 
under some moral influence which he could not resist, said : ' Every 
crime was committed under an influence of such a description; 
and the object of the law was to compel people to control these 
influences.' " 
That, gentlemen, is the law of this case. It is the law which 
must govern you in your deliberations. You are not to ask your- 
selves the vague question whether the prisoner wras or was not in- 
sane, without having any clear or definite comprehension of what 
insanity is, but you are to ask yourselves the question, did the 
prisoner understand this act when he raised that hatchet and smote 
Holcher those fatal blows ; did he understand that the law's of God 
and man forbade him, and did he know that those laws would hold 
him responsible for it when discovered and brought before a tri- 
bunal of justice? If he did, he is guilty. No matter though he 21 
says, and his counsel for him argue, that an irresistible, mysterious 
power urged him on to the commission. This is no defense. The 
law says it is the duty of the person to resist these influences, and 
to successfully resist them. The safety of society, the protection 
of life, require that we should hold persons accountable for crime 
who know that the act which they do is a criminal one. 
Tn contemplating this case it impresses us as a 
forcible illustration of the indicia of simulated insan- 
ity as given by Dr. Ray in his sixteenth chapter. 
The harmony of Waltz' conduct with that of the test- 
signs there given, forms a most salient feature in this 
drama of dissimulation. We accordingly present it in 
a parallel analysis: 
Ray. 
The grand fault committed by 
impostors is, that, in their anx- 
iety to produce an imitation 
which shall deceive, they overdo 
the character they assume. 
Waltz. 
Waltz' conduct ip the court 
room was so violent that Dr. 
Mackey could only check him by 
telling him that he was over- 
doing his part, when he imme- 
diately subsided. 
A person simulating mania, 
will frequently deny all knowl- 
edge of men or things with 
whom he has been most familiar. 
The very names, dates and trans- 
actions with which he has been 
most lately and intimately con- 
versant, he will, for the same 
reason, refuse to remember. 
When first questioned by the 
Commissioners, Waltz could not 
tell his father's or mother's name, 
or the church they attended; 
said he did not know what a 
court house was and had never 
seen one. Did not remember ever 
coming to Catskill village, &c. 
Well-marked, real mania, sel- 
dom occurs suddenly, but is pre- 
ceded, as has been elsewhere no- 
ticed, by a course of preliminary 
symptoms. In simulated insan- 
ity, on the contrary, the invasion 
is as sudden as is most frequently 
the occasion that leads to it. 
Waltz had never been sickly, 
nor had he altered in any trait of 
his habitual demeanor until after 
he was told that his only defense 
was insanity, when he showed 
the first outbreak of violence 
suddenly and without premoni- 
tion. 22 
Ray. 
In real mania there is usually 
an extreme irritability of temper, 
which makes the person impa- 
tient of the least contradiction, 
and is constantly breaking out 
into furious gusts of passion. 
Waltz. 
The jailor's testimony was that 
Waltz was habitually quiet and 
good natured, and as he ex- 
pressed it, " would hurt nobody." 
He showed no irritability what- 
ever under examination. On the 
contrary, he was melted to tears. 
In real mania, the patient will 
be days and even a week without 
sleep, while the simulator will be 
observed not to protract his 
sleeplessness to anything like the 
period which is commonly at- 
tained in the real disease. 
Waltz habitually slept well. 
The only interruption to this 
habit, was on the two nights sue - 
ceeding the murder of Holcher, 
when remorse was distressing 
his conscience. He admitted 
this himself. 
In simulated madness there is 
also a certain hesitation and ap- 
pearance of premeditation in the 
succession of ideas, however in- 
coherent, very different from the 
abruptness and rapidity with 
which in real madness the train 
of thought is changed. This, of 
itself is sufficient in the majority 
of cases, to reveal the deception 
to the practiced observer of in- 
sanity. 
Waltz from the first hesitated 
and deliberated upon his answers, 
apparently studying his part as 
he went along, and attempting 
in a clumsy way to escape being 
made to draw conclusions from 
his own premises, knowing as 
he did that they were false. 
Hence, he showed none of that 
natural logic which even an in- 
sane mind displays. In other 
words he was not consistent with 
himself. 
The impostor generally evinces 
no settled diminution of his at- 
tachment to his family or friends. 
Waltz to save his father who 
was first arrested, confessed the 
murder before there was the least 
evidence against him yet col- 
lected. 
Generally, persons feigning 
mania, lack the bold, unflinching 
look of real maniacs. They never 
look the physician steadily in the 
face, nor allow him to fix their 
eye. 
Waltz on the Commissioners 
first entering his cell, would not 
look at them, turning his face to 
the wall, and constantly when 
closely gazed at, would close his 
eyes and make wry faces. 23 
Ill conclusion, and not to unduly extend this narra- 
tive we may say that in the other signs mentioned by 
Dr. Ray, Waltz presented almost every feature which 
an untrained simulator would be likely to assume in 
order to further his object. And so impossible is it to 
continually veil truth against the persistent efforts of 
nature to express herself, that, when Waltz was directly 
accused of feigning, his face for the first time showed a 
blush of disappointment and shame, as he exclaimed, 
"feigning?" feigning what? 
It would seem after all, from what Dr. Ray and other 
authors quoted by him have said upon this subject, 
that it is really more difficult to feign insanity than it 
is for an expert to detect it. All nature and experience 
are on the side of the latter, all difficulty and obstruc- 
tion in the way of the simulator. THE 
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INSANITY. 
The American Journal of Insanity is published quarterly, at the 
State Lunatic Asylum, Utica, N. Y. The first number of each volume 
is issued in July. 
Editor, 
JOHN P. GRAY, Medical Superintendent. 
Associate Editors, 
JUDSON B. ANDREWS, 
WILLIS E. FORD, 
ALFRED T. LIVINGSTON, 
EDWIN E. SMITH, 
Assistant Physicians. 
THEODORE DEECKE, Special Pathologist. 
TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION, 
Five Dollars per .A.nimiii, in Advance. 
Exchanges, Books for Review, and Business Communications, 
may be sent to the Editor, directed as follows: "Journal of 
Insanity, State Lunatic Asylum, Utica, N. Y." 
Scale of Charges for Advertisements. 
One Page, one insertion 88.00, yearly insertion 820.00 
Half Page, " " 5.00, " " 15.00 
Quarter Page, " " 3.00, " " 10.00 
The Journal now enters upon its thirty-first year. It was established 
by the late Dr. Brigham, the first Superintendent of the New York 
State Lunatic Asylum, and after his death edited by Dr. T. Romeyn 
Beck, author of "Beck's Medical Jurisprudence;" and since 1854, by 
Dr. John P. Gray and the Medical Staff of the Asylum. It is the 
oldest journal devoted especially to Insanity, its Treatment, Juris- 
prudence, &c., and is particularly valuable to the medical and legal 
professions, and to all interested in the subject of Insanity and Psy- 
chological Science.