Medical Aspects of
the Czolgosz Case, is a special number of the Alienist and
Neurolgist [sic], St. Louis, Jan., 1902. No. I., pages
13. It is an essay by Charles Hamilton Hughes, M. D., Professor
of Psychiatry and Neuriatry, Barnes Medical College.
Is there an anarchist printer, or
proofreader in the office of this paucipaginate and multiloquus
periodical? For on page 3, in the middle of it, we read about the
execution of that wretch, that: “At 7:17 a. m., after satisfactory
pulse and respiration tests on the part of the attending physicians,
the prison warden pronounced the criminal deed.” (Italics
ours.) Was that execution a criminal deed? What a criminal publishing
neglect! Prof. H. finds fault with the autopsy verdict, that no
disease of brain was found, for, contends he, there must have been
such from at least the elec- 
tric shock. Is this not acute? Spitzka, where are you?
Prof. H.’s rhetorical taste is sui
generis, for complaining that the press of this country had
no code of ethics, he brings in grotesque juxtaposition the President’s
character and handling of crime by the press, without even a mitigating
“neither” between these. Then he speaks in the same clause of “oblivion”
and “obliquy” (the spelling is not mine) demanded for that criminal.
Now you can’t forget a thing when you are “loquiing” about it. Prof.
H. wants a code of ethics for the press. Who is to make it? Any
one else but the people?
The Professor complains that the criminal’s
brain was not given to science, he means of course scientific men,
in order that they might find out the cause of that crime. Now supposing
that they had had it and found out that some cells were abnormal
materially, then there would be proof that there was no psychic
crime at all. The Prof.’s ethical creed betrays itself on page 7,
line 2, top, where he speaks of the “criminal brain.”
What is the gist of it? The Prof.’s
whole argument is crassly materialistic, and the total absence of
religious emotion in that wretch forms no item in the Prof.’s search
for the etiologic moment of his crime. It must be assumed that the
Prof. regards such absence as normal. A few millions of humanity
will differ from such a view. Crime is on the increase, religion
on the decrease; is there a causal nexus here? Ah, me! Psychiaters
ought to be psychologists too, for as one has well said: “Other
coins than those of materialism have also currency.”