The Absence of Reasonable Motive 
IN THE 
SO-CALLED "CRIMINAL ACTS" 
OF THE 
CONFIRMED INEBRIATE. 
By L. D. Mason, M.D., 
Consulting Physician Inebriates' Home, Fort Hamilton, L. I, 
^Reprinted from Journal of Inebriety for January, 1892.] THE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE MOTIVE IN 
THE SO-CALLED " CRIMINAL ACTS" OF THE 
CONFIRMED INEBRIATE* 
By L. D. Mason, M.D., 
Consulting Physician Inebriates' Home, Fort Hamilton, L. I. 
" Motive " may be defined as that which actuates or in- 
fluences, or that which determines choice. It implies the 
presence of an unimpaired will power, at least one that is not 
so seriously impaired as to be incapable of volition, and 
to be actuated either by right or wrong desires. 
Impulse is the sudden application of some powerful mo- 
tive, that causes the will to act hastily without its usual 
deliberation, or that exercise of the reasoning faculties that 
occurs when a purpose is deliberately formed. The genesis 
of impulse may be a good or an evil motive. 
In both instances, either when the act results from the 
motive operating upon the mind through a deliberate and 
logical course of reasoning, or impulsively, as when the mo- 
tive acts independently of, or supersedes and dethrones 
reason if it attempts to assert itself, there is one condition 
that is common to both, and that always is present, namely, 
consciousness of the act. The person invariably knows he has 
performed the act whether the motive were good or evil, the 
result of deliberation or of impulse. 
How often do we hear the expression, "What motive 
urged him to do such an act ? " and if the person be in a nor- 
mal mental condition, the law, if the act involves a legal in- 
fringement, arrests and punishes the transgressor. But are 
these words applied to the acts of an insane person ? Cer- 
* Read before the Section of Medical Jurisprudence and Neurology, at the 
Forty-second Annual Meeting of the American Medical Association, Washing- 
ton, D. C., May 6,1891. 4 
The Absence of Reasonable Motive in the 
tainly not. All acknowledge that the will power in this case 
is held in abeyance in some instances, or permanently an- 
nulled in others in which the insanity is incurable. The 
actions of the acute or chronic insane are senseless and 
utterly devoid of reason ; if a quasi motive is asserted it is 
insufficient, and as a rule ridiculous, incompetent to explain 
an act often involving matters of the greatest moment, even 
life itself. This is seen in certain forms of monomania. 
Thus the pyro-maniac sets fire to a crowded tenement, and 
gives as a reason for his motive in so doing that he likes the 
excitement and confusion incident to such a scene ; all other 
motives based on rational explanation being excluded, such a 
one would be regarded and dealt with simply as a person 
possessing a dangerous monomania, and demanding close 
confinement in an insane asylum. No one is held responsi- 
ble for his acts, if he is incapable of exercising his will 
power, the ability to reason from cause to effect or discrimi- 
nate between good and evil courses, and the consequences 
resulting from these. 
In some forms of insanity where the will power and 
reason are not totally annihilated, and the insane person capa- 
ble of exercising a discriminating power to a certain extent, 
having at least a partial knowledge of right and wrong-even 
in these cases the insane person is never legally punished 
although he may be disciplined by "institutional forms of 
correction " ; this treatment is much the same as that of a 
child who has not yet arrived at the years of discretion, and is 
still subject to his parents ; the parent may correct the evil- 
doer of tender years, yet the law will not punish such an 
one. 
The law recognizes the absence of full responsibility 
among the more youthful class of criminals, and among the 
" criminal insane," so-called. In the former instances the 
State establishes " reformatories," in the latter, an asylum for 
the " criminal insane." But while the insane, the imbecile, the 
idiotic, and those of tender years have thus been leniently 
dealt with ; by some strange, illogical process of reasoning, or So-called Criminal Acts of the Confirmed Inebriate. 
5 
by actual indifference to the facts of the case, the confirmed 
inebriate has been excluded from all these benefits, and, more- 
over, his inebriety has been regarded not as an extenuating 
circumstance, but rather as an aggravation of his so-called 
criminal act. 
Are his acts rational ? Are they based on a reasonable 
motive ? Are they the result of a well-balanced mind ? Is 
he always even conscious of the acts he performs ? Analyze 
the acts of the confirmed inebriate and you will find that they 
are the acts of an insane person. Insane from the temporary 
or habitual use of alcohol. 
If we can show that in the majority of cases, in the acts 
of the confirmed inebriate there is absence of proper motive, 
absence of intelligent purpose, absence even of consciousness 
of the actin some instances, ought he not to come under the 
benefits of that unwritten or recorded law which excludes 
from penalty the insane or those of an irresponsible age, and 
does not hold them responsible for their acts ? 
It has been abundantly shown, particularly by the re- 
searches of Dr. T. D. Crothers, that amnesia, partial or com- 
plete, is the mental condition of the average confirmed ine- 
briate. If the loss of memory is complete, he becomes a 
veritable automaton ; his movements are mechanical, devoid 
of thought or reason, and he is therefore unconscious of his 
acts ; under this condition what he does may be ridiculous 
or even dangerous. His actions are similar to those of a 
somnambulist who, walking in his sleep, performs deeds of 
which he is totally unconscious when awakened. The acts of 
the confirmed inebriate are thus often performed uncon- 
sciously, and when he comes out of this "trance state," so- 
called, or condition of cerebral automatism, he has not any 
knowledge of what he has done, and yet oftentimes there is 
a seemingly rational action on his part, and his condition 
may not be detected because not suspected, by those with 
whom he is brought in contact ; while in this condition the 
inebriate may commit acts that are criminal. 
Mendacity has been set down as one of the prominent 6 
The Absence of Reasonable Motive in the 
characteristics of the inebriate, but I am convinced that the 
denial of the inebriate of the statements he has previously 
made or the acts he has done, when confronted with them, is 
often due to his utter unconsciousness of ever having made 
such statements or performed such acts. 
The " testamentary capacity " of a confirmed inebriate 
should be excluded on this ground, and no " confirmed ine- 
briate" should be empanelled in any jury, nor should his tes- 
timony as a witness be received in any court. 
The validity of the signatures of confirmed inebriates to 
wills, contracts, or affidavits should always be questioned if 
allowed, and " marriage " contracted under these conditions 
should be annulled. I am acquainted with an instance in 
which the confirmed inebriate, a young man of wealth, con- 
tracted such a misalliance. The validity of the marriage 
was not questioned, in order to avoid publicity, and the 
woman, whose sole object was money, finally consented to 
relinquish her claim for the sum of twenty thousand dollars. 
Now I maintain that such a marriage was not valid, and 
should not have received legal recognition. 
Not only in the trance state, where consciousness seems 
to be annulled, and the memory temporarily abolished, may 
the inebriate perform acts that he is totally unconscious of, 
as a somnambulist or automaton, and thus render himself lia- 
ble to criminal procedure, or the subject of fraud on the part 
of others ; but there is under this condition a tendency to 
repeat the crime or act he may have been previously guilty of, 
a monomania, so to speak, for a special act. 
Dr. Alex. Peddie of Edinburgh, reports the following 
cases : 
At the prison of Perth, one woman was committed 137 
times for being drunk ; her invariable practice was to smash 
widows. A man when drunk stole nothing but Bibles. 
Another stole nothing but shawls ; another shoes. Another 
was transported for stealing tubs on seven different occa- 
sions ; with one exception he was always guilty of tub steal- 
ing. Others have been repeatedly convicted of horse 
stealing. So-called Criminal Acts of the Confirmed Inebriate. 
7 
In others the destructive tendency is marked by unusual 
prodigality and waste, such as scattering money in the street, 
or throwing it in the fire. Such persons are notorious for 
" cleaning out " a saloon, smashing, breaking, and throwing 
out on the street articles of furniture, etc. There is not any 
" reason in the madness " of these temporarily insane inebri- 
ates. Their actions are motiveless. The whole machinery 
of the will is out of order, the power of co-ordination of the 
faculties is lost, hence all acts are erratic. 
In addition to the " trance state " and " monomanical 
acts " of the confirmed inebriate, there is another condition 
under which the inebriate may perpetrate higher grades of 
crime. We refer to that condition where the prominent 
characteristic of the insanity of the inebriate is the mono- 
mania of suspicion or persecution, a condition not uncommon 
in the confirmed inebriate. Under this condition the inebri- 
ate is morose, taciturn, secretive ; if he communicates his 
suspicions to any one, it is only occasionally and with great 
reservation. He imagines that enemies are trying to poison 
him ; he hears voices in the air; he is followed, and in danger 
of being waylaid, or his wife is unfaithful to him ; suspicion 
of " marital infidelity " is very common in these cases. Rob- 
bery, mutilation, murder, and every possible misfortune that 
may happen to a person, are imagined by these insane inebri- 
ates, as being applied to their case. 
Acting under erroneous suppositions, such persons pre- 
pare themselves for the imaginary danger, or assault those 
whom they believe would injure them ; or take vengeance 
on the innocent wife whom they judge guilty of-marital infi- 
delity. Oftentimes their mental condition is not suspected, 
and oftentimes only after they have wreaked their insane fury 
on those about them. 
And just here, in parenthesis, we would remark that 
though the acts of the confirmed inebriate may fill every 
grade of crime, from petty theft to homicide, yet those crimi- 
nal acts which call for shrewdness, mechanical skill, involving 
as they do the maturing of long-continued plans, well laid, 8 
The Absence of Reasonable Motive in the 
and aptly executed, as professional burglary, systematic for- 
gery, etc., the confirmed inebriate is incapable of. 
The burglar and the systematic forger may drink liquor, 
but they have the fullest exercise of their mental faculties, and 
the ability to use liquor moderately, so that their hand is 
steady, their nerves unflinching, and their reason unclouded. 
This is the universal testimony of the governors or wardens 
of penitentiaries and prisons in America and Great Britain, 
and hence, the great distinction between the so-called 
" criminal inebriate " over the professional criminal. The 
confirmed inebriate acts without motive, without the delibera- 
tion, without that usual caution and concealment that 
characterize the criminal who is in a normal mental and physi- 
cal condition. 
The popular impression seems to be, testifies Mr. John C. 
Salter, the warden of the State penitentiary at Chester, Illi- 
nois, that a criminal is necessarily a drunkard. 
" The large proportion of criminals, such as burglars, for- 
gers, and counterfeiters, need clear brains, steady nerves, 
quick perceptions, to carry out their plans, which would be 
impossible under the influence of intoxicating drink." 
The assassin may drink to nerve himself to the deed, but 
only to that extent, and no more. This form of crime, where 
the alcoholic stimulant is taken deliberately, with the intention 
of nerving the criminal to the act, is most aptly shown in the 
great Shakespearian tragedy. Lady Macbeth, so stimulated 
and nerved as an accomplice to Macbeth in his bloody deed, 
thus soliloquizes : 
" That which hath made them drunk hath made me bold ; 
What hath quenched them hath given me fire." 
Here the antecedents, the motive, and the subsequent events 
of the plot take precedence, and the alcohol taken neither to 
produce drunkenness nor lethargy plays but a secondary and 
inferior part in the whole tragedy. The " deep damnation of 
the taking off of Duncan " is not lessened one whit by the 
fact that alcohol was used by the conspirators and murderers So-called Criminal Acts of the Confirmed Inebriate. 
9 
to nerve themselves for the tragedy. The alcohol did not 
prompt the deed ; it was deliberately taken to enable them to 
perform it - a condition quite the reverse of the insane ine- 
briate or the person suffering from " chronic alcoholic mania," 
in which the " mania of suspicion," or an acute alcoholic 
mania is developed. Here the maniac, in his sudden fury, 
cyclonic in its violence and rapidity, kills those nearest to 
him without premeditation or motive. 
Hence the insane inebriate, the subject of the monomania 
of suspicion or persecution, is easily traced to the act com- 
mitted by him, and his attempts at concealment, if made at 
all, are illy disguised. He is not an assassin striking from 
the shadow and then disappearing. His acts are often in the 
open day and the most conspicuous public places. 
Let me cite a prominent example or so, that may more 
forcibly illustrate this class of insane inebriates. And these 
cases will also partially illustrate the acts of the inebriate 
epileptic-different only in this, that the period in which the 
precursory signs appear is longer in the inebriate having the 
monomania of suspicion or persecution than in the epileptic 
inebriate. In the latter the act occurs as soon as the coma 
following the convulsion has passed off. The latter class are 
the most dangerous of all insane inebriates, for they add to 
the insanity of epilepsy, that also which alcohol begets. The 
following cases are instances where the characteristic type of 
the insanity of the inebriate was the " monomania of perse- 
cution " or of suspicion. 
" The patient is 43 years of age, has been drinking to 
excess for several years past, is insane. The 'insanity is 
the direct result of his excessive use of alcohol-there is 
not any hereditary taint. His insanity lasted about a year ; 
he recovered and resumed his business, only to relapse, and 
is now drinking harder than ever. The immediate cause of 
his relapse was a sprained ankle, from which he suffered 
very much. His insanity at all times is that of the ' mono- 
mania of suspicion ' or ' persecution.' His suspicions are 
mainly directed towards his wife and child. He walks about 10 
The Absence of Reasonable Motive in the 
the house, and if he had his full liberty would no doubt 
assault them, for it was found before his condition was fully 
ascertained, that he had concealed under the stationary wash- 
stand of the bedroom occupied by himself and his wife, a 
dirk knife, which was covered with some old clothes." (Re- 
ported by Dr. J. C. Lester, Journal of Inebriety, Vol. vi, 
P- 32.) 
The following case was reported by Dr. Drake of Cincin- 
nati, O., and was published in the report of the New York 
State Inebriate Asylum for 1866, the late Dr. J. E. Turner, 
Superintendent. At the time of the occurrence, it attracted 
the attention of the medical public in its bearing on the legal 
responsibility of the insane. 
"John Birdsall, of Harrison, in that State, was indicted 
in 1829 for the murder of his wife with an axe, by dividing 
the spinal column in the neck. He was about 50 years of 
age, had been married to this his second wife nineteen or 
twenty years, and had children by her. For some years pre- 
vious he had been subject to fits of intoxication. These, of 
late, were followed by delirium tremens, which generally 
lasted several days. In these paroxysms, he entertained great 
fears for his safety - ran about the village as if attempting 
to escape pursuit. At another time he concealed himself be- 
tween a straw bed and a feather bed in his own house. He 
would point his gun from a window as if for defense against 
imaginary persons. He was also very watchful. 
" The prevailing maniacal delusion was that his wife was 
in combination with his neighbors, and his son by his first 
wife, against his life. He had charged her during his 
paroxysms with criminal intimacy with these, and had threat- 
ened to kill her on Sunday. He was intoxicated Monday, 
Tuesday, and Wednesday. On Wednesday evening he com- 
plained of being unwell, but seemed to be rational. He slept 
none that night, and the next day the family thought him crazy, 
but were not alarmed. In the course of the day he took an 
axe and went to a neighbor, whom he desired to return with 
him, as he stated they wanted to kill him (monomania of per- So-called Criminal Acts of the Confirmed Inebriate. 
11 
secution). He spent the remainder of the day at home, ap- 
parently in terror and agitation, manifested jealousy of his 
wife, barred the doors, and fancied that the person of whom 
he was jealous was manufacturing ropes up stairs to hang 
him. In the course of the afternoon he suddenly committed 
murder. His wife was sitting by the fire, and he walked into 
the room. After the fatal blow on the neck, he followed it 
by two or three on the face. His eldest daughter seized the 
axe, which he yielded, but took a scythe and attempted to 
strike her. She defended herself until the door was opened. 
When arrested, he acknowledged the homicide, and knew, he 
said, that he would be hung, and regretted that he had not 
done it sooner. After being committed, he became regular, 
and expressed sorrow for what he had done. On trial three 
medical witnesses agreed that he labored under mania a 
potii when he committed the homicide. 
"For the defense it was urged, that when drunkenness 
gives rise to insanity, it should cause immunity, and hence form 
a legal excuse. On the other hand the counsel for the people 
remarked, ' that Birdsall knew that his delirium followed his 
intoxication, and hence it was voluntary.' The law therefore 
held him accountable for actions during such a state. The 
verdict was murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced 
to death. It is needless to add that there was not the slight- 
est foundation for the insane vagaries of Birdsall, and no 
' reasonable motive ' for his act." 
Let me cite another case, reported as a newspaper item. 
"Alexander C. Wingate, a wealthy resident of Woodford Co., 
Ky., was shot dead about 4 o'clock this morning (March 29, 
1882), on an Ohio and Mississippi train, near Mitchell, Ind., 
by a man named Haynes, who was crazed by drink and had 
no provocation for the shooting. 
" Mr. Wingate was returning home from a business trip 
from the West, and was in a sleeping car. Haynes entered the 
car laboring under great excitement, and said to the porter 
and several passengers that he had been followed by thieves 
from San Francisco, who were bent on robbing him (mania 12 
The Absence of Reasonable Motive in the 
of suspicion). He begged the passengers to keep his money 
- which amounted to only $90. The porter tried to pacify 
him, but he grew more desperate, and flourished his revolver 
around wildly. The train men were either too cowardly or 
did not have sense enough to wrest the revolver from him, 
and eject him from the train. 
"At this time, Mr. Wingate stepped from his berth. 
Haynes immediately confronted him with the revolver, and 
exclaimed, 'Give me my money,' and fired. Wingate threw 
up both hands, cried ' I am shot,' and sank down dead. The 
maniac (from alcohol) turned and fired two random shots, 
then darted past the passengers and out of the car door, and 
jumped off the train, which was running at the rate of 45 
miles an hour. He landed safely, walked half a mile to a 
creek, stripped himself naked and jumped into the stream. 
His dead body was found there this morning. His clothes 
were found hanging to a tree 100 yards distant, and they 
contained $90 in gold, a gold watch, an express receipt for 
$400 sent from El Paso, Tex., to New Salem, O., and a quart 
bottle of brandy, half full. In his valise was found a gam- 
bler's 'lay-out.' Haynes is from Yuma, Ariz. He was evi- 
dently laboring from delirium tremens (?) at the time of the 
deed, or rather ' mania apotu? " 
Although homicide was the prominent feature of the case, 
' homicidal mania ' was not. Haynes did not kill Wingate 
because a predisposition to kill some one predominated, but 
as an act of supposed self-defense, and to resent the injustice 
that he supposed Wingate had inflicted on him. In other 
words, the " mania of persecution " was the leading form of 
insanity - a form very common in cases of insanity arising 
from alcohol. 
There is no crime in the calendar that these alcoholic 
maniacs may not commit. Their reason is temporarily de- 
throned, they are unconscious of not only the character of 
the act, but of the acts themselves, and are therefore irre- 
sponsible. The following case shows the complete annihila- 
tion of all mental and moral responsibility. So-called Criminal Acts of the Confirmed Inebriate. 
13 
"A young man in Madison Co., in this State, in the year 
1859, was attacked with alcoholic delirium for the third time. 
While under the attack he killed his father and mother, cut 
out their hearts which he roasted and ate. He was arrested, 
thrown into prison, and indicted for murder. He was 
brought into court for trial, when Judge Gray, of the Su- 
preme Court, stated that the case could not be tried, ' as 
there was no motive to prompt a man to commit such a crime! 
This man was sent to an insane asylum." 
Let me cite a case taken from the records of Broome 
County Circuit Court. " On Decoration Day, 1885, George 
Axtell, a young farmer of the town of Middletown, New 
York, visited Deposit village, and became intoxicated. While 
in this condition, and without provocation, he ran amuck (a 
mok) with a pistol and killed three men. Axtell was con- 
demned to be hanged, but died in jail of heart disease, prior 
to the date fixed for his execution, or we would have had to 
record another case of judicial murder." 
Axtell was undoubtedly affected by " mania a potu," or 
" alcoholic frenzy," or mania, when he committed the homi- 
cides, and was entirely irresponsible. These cases of " alco- 
holic homicidal mania" are not uncommon, and the daily 
prints often furnish us with similar examples. 
I might cite many cases in point showing the various 
kinds of alcoholic insanity, and the crimes committed, as well 
as the judicial opinions expressed, but let these suffice. 
The question whether " premeditation " could be proven 
in the case of the criminal inebriate could not, we think, 
weaken the position taken of the irresponsibility of the ine- 
briate. In some instances apparent premeditation may ex- 
ist ; but the absence of a " reasonable motive " should cer- 
tainly give force to the plea of irresponsibility. 
To sum up the logical conclusions resulting from the 
study of criminal inebriates in a single paragraph, we would 
state : 
An act to be criminal, and to be enrolled under the code 
as a crime, must show such preconception, or preparation, or 14 
The Absence of Reasonable Motive, etc. 
motive, as to make it an act of deliberation, and the intent 
must be proven by the relation of the accused party to the 
deed, before, during, and after its commission. 
If from simple impulse, without premeditation, the act 
must be shown not to have been directly traceable to any 
drug capable of affecting the intellect and developing mani- 
acal impulses; and further, that the person committing the 
act was in full possession of his mental faculties, and was un- 
influenced except by a reasonable motive that prompted the 
deed, in special cases as in murder, the ground of self-de- 
fense being satisfactorily excluded. Under these circum- 
stances, the person has committed a crime, and the evidence 
must acquit or condemn him. 
In all cases, a history of previous confirmed inebriety, 
coupled with an entire absence of reasonable motive, should 
give the person committing the act the full benefit of the 
plea of irresponsibility, and the same " legal excuse " that is 
applied to the acts of " insane criminals." 
And in conclusion, I have only to add that the " criminal 
inebriate " should be dealt with in the same manner as the 
" criminal insane."