[1]“Principles of Physiology,” &c. 5th edit. p. 292, &c.[2]See “The Physiology of Digestion considered with Relation to the Principles of Dietetics.” Second edition, p. 198.
[1]“Principles of Physiology,” &c. 5th edit. p. 292, &c.
[1]“Principles of Physiology,” &c. 5th edit. p. 292, &c.
[2]See “The Physiology of Digestion considered with Relation to the Principles of Dietetics.” Second edition, p. 198.
[2]See “The Physiology of Digestion considered with Relation to the Principles of Dietetics.” Second edition, p. 198.
We have selected the above article from the “Edinburgh Phrenological Journal” for the purpose of calling the attention of phrenologists in this country to the important principles which it contains. The article comes from the pen of a gentleman who probably understands the physiology of the brain, and its real functions, better than any other man living. It is unnecessary for us to dwell on the importance of correctly understanding the above principles, as connected with phrenology, and the desirableness of collecting additional evidence, in order to elucidate them, and show their numerous applications to the various duties and pursuits of life. We would therefore solicit for publication in this Journal, facts showing the positiveincrease, either insizeoractivity, of any particular organ or organs; and also communications tending to illustrate and establish more fully the truth of the enquiries proposed by Dr. Combe, respecting the true physiological laws of the brain.—Ed.
Mr. Editor,—Being in Williamsport, Pa., in the month of May, I was invited by James Armstrong, Esq., prosecuting attorney of Lycoming County, and Mr. Lloyd, high sheriff of said county, to examine the head of a William Miller, who was then in prison awaiting his trial for the murder of a German pedlar by the name of Hoffman. On entering his cell, I found a good looking, not to say a handsome young man, about twenty years of age, in irons, exhibiting no peculiar marks of intelligence, yet a vacuity of expression, a mysterious, reserved appearance, with a countenance somewhat downcast but rather sullen. On proceeding with the examination, I found it one of the most painfully interesting cases that had ever fallen under my observation. The developments and their combinations struck me at once as extremely unfavourable; and, upon this account, I took particular pains to obtain precise and accurate admeasurements. They were taken in the presence of the above named gentlemen, before the trial, and in the absence of all knowledge concerning the prisoner’srealcharacter, except that he was charged with murder.It is tothese measurements, rather than to any statements of my own, that I wish to call particular attention. They are as follows, including the integuments. The allowance generally made for these, is two-eighths of an inch; but, as his integuments were unusually thick, three-eighths of an inch should be deducted in the present case. This will give very accurately the measurements of the skull itself.Measurements of the HeadInchesCircumference of the head around Philoprogenitiveness, Secretiveness, and Eventuality,21⅞From Occipital Spine to Individuality, over Firmness,12⅝”Destructiveness to Destructiveness,7”Combativeness to Combativeness,6½”Ear to Firmness,6⅜””Benevolence,4¾””Individuality,5Thegeneralconfiguration of the head was not less interesting than the particular developments. Whilst the heads of highly moral and intellectual men generally measure from one and a half to three inches more from Individuality to Philoprogenitiveness than from Destructiveness to Destructiveness,hishead was nearly round. The coronal region was poorly developed. The sides of the head were bulged out to an extraordinary extent, whilst it was flattened behind, evidently indicating deficient social feelings. The cerebral fibres were very short from the ear to the organs in the anterior lobe of the brain, as well as from the ear to Adhesiveness and Philoprogenitiveness. His head was somewhat above the average size. His body was strong and well built, yet the quality of his organisation was rather gross. His temperament was principally lymphatic bilious, with some of the sanguine, but scarcely any traces of the nervous.[3]Such a temperament is much more favourable to the exercise of physical than mental power, and to the manifestations of the animal propensities than of the moral sentiments and the intellectual faculties.Having observed the organisation of the body, and of thegeneralform of the head, I commenced a minute comparison of the relative size of the respective organs. The result is as follows:—Amativeness, full.Philoprogenitiveness, average.Adhesiveness, moderate.Inhabitiveness, full.Concentrativeness, large.Combativeness, large.Destructiveness, very large.+Alimentiveness, large.Acquisitiveness, very large.+Secretiveness, very large.Cautiousness, large.Approbativeness, moderate.Self-esteem, very large.Firmness, very large.Conscientiousness, small.Hope, large.Marvellousness, moderate.Veneration, full.Benevolence, moderate.Imitation, average.Ideality, small.Constructiveness, full.Mirthfulness, moderate.Individuality, full.Form, full.Size, large.Weight, full.Colour, moderate.Order, average.Calculation, full.Locality, large.Eventuality, average.Tune, uncertain.Time,”Language, average.Causality,”Comparison,”I shall describe only theextremesof development, and the general result of their respective combinations in activity. The organs located in the sides of the head were the first to arrest my attention. It was the development, not of anyoneof these organs (selfish propensities), but the immense size of thewholeof them, acting without the restraints of either the intellect or the moral sentiments, which would constitute the leading features of character. Acquisitiveness, Secretiveness, Destructiveness, Self-esteem, and Firmness, were all “very large;” Combativeness and Cautiousness were “large,” with Benevolence, Ideality, and Adhesiveness, “moderate.” Any well informed phrenologist can easily predicate the effects resulting from such combination.His predominating Acquisitiveness and Self-esteem would render himsupremelyselfish, and incline him (Conscientiousness being deficient) to appropriate things to himself, without regard to the principles of justice or the right of others. His Secretiveness, Destructiveness, Firmness, and Combativeness, with average intellect, would enable him to devise and execute plans with tolerable success for gratifying his selfish feelings. Still he had not sufficient Causality to plan on a large scale, nor to adapt means to ends successfully in the long run. He would deal principally in “little things.” Conscientiousness and Benevolence would but feebly remonstrate against any measures, however unjust or cruel, which his other faculties might devise and carry into effect. Having weak Adhesiveness and Benevolence, and very large Secretiveness, he would be unsocial, almost destitute of friendship, spend most of his timeby himself, would have few intimates, and no confidants among his acquaintances or even relatives. Few persons would know any thing concerning him; a mystery would hang over all his affairs and conduct.His “very large” Secretiveness and Acquisitiveness doubtless held predominant sway in his character. These, unrestrained, would lay claim to, and appropriate to himself, that which did not belong to him, by fraud, deception, stealth, cheating, pilfering, &c. And Destructiveness “very large” would add to these, robbery and even murder. Having little sympathy or affection, with this organisation, I should not be surprised to learn that even his relatives and friends hadfallen victims to his predominating Acquisitiveness and Destructiveness.There is one faculty in particular which must have entered very largely into the composition of his character—viz. Secretiveness. He was doubtless very sly, artful, and full of plots and stratagems. While he would be cunning, and make few, if any, confessions or acknowledgments, still he did not possess great fore-thought or penetration. But in the art of dissembling, and making false pretensions, he must have been a perfect adept.Having “moderate” Approbativeness and “small” Conscientiousness, he would have little regard for his character, or for what was thought and said of him, and experience but little shame or remorse. His “very large” Firmness would render him persevering in deception and crime—would carry him through any difficulties, and render him obstinate, wilful, and blindly set upon gratifying his selfish propensities. This organisation would render him vindictive in the highest degree, and whatever he might do or say, he would alwaysjustify himself. Another striking fact was the “small” development of Ideality. I have long observed that this organ was almost invariably small in criminals, and its marked deficiency in the present instance struck me with peculiar force. Numerous facts have led me to believe, that a proper development and exercise of Ideality is about as favourable to virtue and morality as even the influence of Conscientiousness. By refining the feelings, it begets a disgust for vice, because it is loathsome, and thereby promotes virtue. The organs of the intellect were not remarkable for either their size or deficiency. But in their exercise, they would be controlled principally by the selfish feelings.During the examination, allusion was made to the fact, (which he had frequently related before,) that the day previous to the murder he had become very angry, in consequence of meeting with some accident in his mechanical labours, and broke in pieces the object of his resentment. I afterwards was informed, that he was often subject to turns of anger, and that he conducted strangely at such times—that he would neither work, talk, nor eat, but either sit or lie down in silence and sullenness for hours. In view of these facts, the prisoner’s counsel attempted to account for the murder by pleading at the trial partial insanity, but were unsuccessful. I was partly of the opinion, that Destructiveness was morbidly excited prior to the murder. But subsequent facts induced me to change it.I have thus stated the impressions made upon my mind during the examination, and deduced a few leading features of character, on strictly phrenological principles, without any knowledge of the realcharacter or private history of William Miller, aside from a few immediate facts connected with the murder of Hoffman.Yours, &c.O. S. Fowler,210 Chesnut street.Philadelphia, October 20th, 1838.
Mr. Editor,—
Being in Williamsport, Pa., in the month of May, I was invited by James Armstrong, Esq., prosecuting attorney of Lycoming County, and Mr. Lloyd, high sheriff of said county, to examine the head of a William Miller, who was then in prison awaiting his trial for the murder of a German pedlar by the name of Hoffman. On entering his cell, I found a good looking, not to say a handsome young man, about twenty years of age, in irons, exhibiting no peculiar marks of intelligence, yet a vacuity of expression, a mysterious, reserved appearance, with a countenance somewhat downcast but rather sullen. On proceeding with the examination, I found it one of the most painfully interesting cases that had ever fallen under my observation. The developments and their combinations struck me at once as extremely unfavourable; and, upon this account, I took particular pains to obtain precise and accurate admeasurements. They were taken in the presence of the above named gentlemen, before the trial, and in the absence of all knowledge concerning the prisoner’srealcharacter, except that he was charged with murder.
It is tothese measurements, rather than to any statements of my own, that I wish to call particular attention. They are as follows, including the integuments. The allowance generally made for these, is two-eighths of an inch; but, as his integuments were unusually thick, three-eighths of an inch should be deducted in the present case. This will give very accurately the measurements of the skull itself.
Measurements of the Head
Thegeneralconfiguration of the head was not less interesting than the particular developments. Whilst the heads of highly moral and intellectual men generally measure from one and a half to three inches more from Individuality to Philoprogenitiveness than from Destructiveness to Destructiveness,hishead was nearly round. The coronal region was poorly developed. The sides of the head were bulged out to an extraordinary extent, whilst it was flattened behind, evidently indicating deficient social feelings. The cerebral fibres were very short from the ear to the organs in the anterior lobe of the brain, as well as from the ear to Adhesiveness and Philoprogenitiveness. His head was somewhat above the average size. His body was strong and well built, yet the quality of his organisation was rather gross. His temperament was principally lymphatic bilious, with some of the sanguine, but scarcely any traces of the nervous.[3]Such a temperament is much more favourable to the exercise of physical than mental power, and to the manifestations of the animal propensities than of the moral sentiments and the intellectual faculties.
Having observed the organisation of the body, and of thegeneralform of the head, I commenced a minute comparison of the relative size of the respective organs. The result is as follows:—
I shall describe only theextremesof development, and the general result of their respective combinations in activity. The organs located in the sides of the head were the first to arrest my attention. It was the development, not of anyoneof these organs (selfish propensities), but the immense size of thewholeof them, acting without the restraints of either the intellect or the moral sentiments, which would constitute the leading features of character. Acquisitiveness, Secretiveness, Destructiveness, Self-esteem, and Firmness, were all “very large;” Combativeness and Cautiousness were “large,” with Benevolence, Ideality, and Adhesiveness, “moderate.” Any well informed phrenologist can easily predicate the effects resulting from such combination.
His predominating Acquisitiveness and Self-esteem would render himsupremelyselfish, and incline him (Conscientiousness being deficient) to appropriate things to himself, without regard to the principles of justice or the right of others. His Secretiveness, Destructiveness, Firmness, and Combativeness, with average intellect, would enable him to devise and execute plans with tolerable success for gratifying his selfish feelings. Still he had not sufficient Causality to plan on a large scale, nor to adapt means to ends successfully in the long run. He would deal principally in “little things.” Conscientiousness and Benevolence would but feebly remonstrate against any measures, however unjust or cruel, which his other faculties might devise and carry into effect. Having weak Adhesiveness and Benevolence, and very large Secretiveness, he would be unsocial, almost destitute of friendship, spend most of his timeby himself, would have few intimates, and no confidants among his acquaintances or even relatives. Few persons would know any thing concerning him; a mystery would hang over all his affairs and conduct.
His “very large” Secretiveness and Acquisitiveness doubtless held predominant sway in his character. These, unrestrained, would lay claim to, and appropriate to himself, that which did not belong to him, by fraud, deception, stealth, cheating, pilfering, &c. And Destructiveness “very large” would add to these, robbery and even murder. Having little sympathy or affection, with this organisation, I should not be surprised to learn that even his relatives and friends hadfallen victims to his predominating Acquisitiveness and Destructiveness.
There is one faculty in particular which must have entered very largely into the composition of his character—viz. Secretiveness. He was doubtless very sly, artful, and full of plots and stratagems. While he would be cunning, and make few, if any, confessions or acknowledgments, still he did not possess great fore-thought or penetration. But in the art of dissembling, and making false pretensions, he must have been a perfect adept.
Having “moderate” Approbativeness and “small” Conscientiousness, he would have little regard for his character, or for what was thought and said of him, and experience but little shame or remorse. His “very large” Firmness would render him persevering in deception and crime—would carry him through any difficulties, and render him obstinate, wilful, and blindly set upon gratifying his selfish propensities. This organisation would render him vindictive in the highest degree, and whatever he might do or say, he would alwaysjustify himself. Another striking fact was the “small” development of Ideality. I have long observed that this organ was almost invariably small in criminals, and its marked deficiency in the present instance struck me with peculiar force. Numerous facts have led me to believe, that a proper development and exercise of Ideality is about as favourable to virtue and morality as even the influence of Conscientiousness. By refining the feelings, it begets a disgust for vice, because it is loathsome, and thereby promotes virtue. The organs of the intellect were not remarkable for either their size or deficiency. But in their exercise, they would be controlled principally by the selfish feelings.
During the examination, allusion was made to the fact, (which he had frequently related before,) that the day previous to the murder he had become very angry, in consequence of meeting with some accident in his mechanical labours, and broke in pieces the object of his resentment. I afterwards was informed, that he was often subject to turns of anger, and that he conducted strangely at such times—that he would neither work, talk, nor eat, but either sit or lie down in silence and sullenness for hours. In view of these facts, the prisoner’s counsel attempted to account for the murder by pleading at the trial partial insanity, but were unsuccessful. I was partly of the opinion, that Destructiveness was morbidly excited prior to the murder. But subsequent facts induced me to change it.
I have thus stated the impressions made upon my mind during the examination, and deduced a few leading features of character, on strictly phrenological principles, without any knowledge of the realcharacter or private history of William Miller, aside from a few immediate facts connected with the murder of Hoffman.
Yours, &c.
O. S. Fowler,210 Chesnut street.
Philadelphia, October 20th, 1838.
On the reception of the above letter, wishing to learn farther particulars, we addressed a line to the Hon. Ellis Lewis, presiding judge of the court at the trial of William Miller, to which we received the following reply:—
To the Editor of the American Phrenological Journal.Williamsport, December 29th, 1838.Sir,—Absence from home on public duties has prevented, until this time, an answer to yours of the 1st ult., requesting particulars respecting the trial and execution ofWilliam Miller. I do not know that any paper contains these particulars, and I will therefore endeavour to comply with your request by the following brief statement.William Miller was indicted for the murder of Solomon Hoffman, an offence committed in Jackson township, in this county (Lycoming), on the first day of February, 1838. On the first day of May, 1838, a jury was sworn to try the cause. The first count charged the offence in the usual manner. The second count set forth that the crime was committed “by lying in wait in, upon, and near a public highway.” The evidence on the part of the commonwealth fully established the facts following:—That Solomon Hoffman was a traveling pedlar, carrying a pack on his back; that he sojourned one night at Bastian’s tavern, situate at the edge of the woods between the Block-House settlement and Pont Run; that William Miller was a cabinet-maker, boarding at the same house; that these two individuals slept in the same room together that night; that Miller, on being urged by Hoffman in the morning to purchase goods, declined, stating that he had borrowed money from Bastians, and did not wish them to know that he had money, but proposed to purchase of Hoffman,if the latter would stop at the side of the road, in the woods, where Miller stated thathewould be engaged cutting wood, as the other passed along on his way. This was agreed to. Miller stationed himself by the way side, with his axe, for the purpose of executing his plan of destruction. The deceased soon made his appearance; and while he was stooping down to take some articles out of the pack to exhibit to Miller, the latter killed him with the axe. Having takensuch articles as he desired at the time, and all the money in the pocket book of the deceased, Miller buried the dead body and the pack under the leaves and snow, the latter being upwards of two feet deep in the woods. The deceased was a stranger—a German—and had but one relative, a brother, in this country. That brother he had engaged to meet the next day after the murder in Bloomingrove; but as he did not fulfil that appointment, the brother was alarmed, and made a most anxious and scrutinising search for the deceased, but could find no traces of him whatever after he left Bastians in the morning. The brother then came to the public house of George Duitch, in Williamsport, to proceed on his journey, giving up all hope of ascertaining the cause of the mysterious disappearance of the deceased. By what might be regarded as a singular intervention of Providence, Millercametothis tavern, which was twenty or thirty miles from his residence,introduced himselfto the brother of the deceased, and, by hisvoluntary prevaricationsandfalsehoods, excited suspicion, which, upon farther scrutiny, led to the full disclosure of his guilt.The evidence was so full and satisfactory, that there was no room to doubt with respect to the agency of the prisoner in causing the death of Hoffman, in the manner already detailed. The counsel for the prisoner, in their anxiety to do all in their power to save his life, endeavoured to show that he was afflicted with that species of insanity calledmonomania. But the evidence on this subject consisted chiefly of the proof ofcaseswhereotherindividuals, whose minds appeared sound upon subjects in general, were nevertheless deranged upon particular subjects. The proof did not establish the fact that theprisonerwas afflicted with that species of insanity.In the course of the trial, the prisoner’s counsel,without objection on the part of the commonwealth, introduced Mr. O. S. Fowler, the celebrated phrenologist, as a witness. He described the prisoner as of the lymphatic temperament; and stated that persons of this temperament are more apt to be deranged upon the animal passions than upon the intellectual or moral faculties. He also, among other things, described the prisoner’s phrenological developments, as they appeared to him on an examination some days previously in the prisoner’s cell. The organs ofDestructiveness,Secretiveness, andAcquisitiveness, were stated by Mr. Fowler to be immense, the head measuring about 7¼ inches in diameter from ear to ear.In giving the instructions to the jury, I stated to them that if the evidence for the commonwealth was believed, it established a case of murder of the first degree, unless they thought proper to acquit entirely upon the ground ofinsanity. The species of insanity relied upon by the prisoner’s counsel, was that denominatedmonomania.This exists where there is adelusionononeor asmall numberof subjects, which no course of reasoning or force of evidence can remove. Every man, of mature age, ispresumedto possess a sound mind until thecontraryappears. To establish this kind of insanity,delusionmust be shown to exist on one subject, or on some small number of subjects. It was stated to the jury, that the court could perceive no sufficient evidence ofdelusionor hallucination on any subject to establish the existence ofmonomania; still, if the jury believed that the prisoner was, at the time of committing the act charged, “incapable of judging between right and wrong, and did not know that he was committing an offence against the laws of God and man,” it would be their duty to acquit; and if they did so, it would be necessary to specify in their verdict the ground of acquittal, in accordance with the act of assembly of 13th June, 1836. But (continued the court) if any insanity exists in this case, it is of that description denominatedmoral insanity. Thisarises from the existence of some of the natural propensities in such violence, that it is impossible not to yield to them. It bears a striking resemblance tovice, which is said to consist in “an undue excitement of the passions and will, and in their irregular or crooked actions leading to crime.” It is therefore to be received with the utmost scrutiny. It is notgenerallyadmitted in legal tribunals as a species of insanity which relieves from responsibility for crime, and it oughtneverto be admitted as a defence until it is shown that these propensities exist in such violence as to subjugate the intellect, control the will, and render it impossible for the party to do otherwise than yield.Where its existence is thus fully established, this species of insanity, like every other, relieves from accountability to human laws.But this state of mind is not to be presumed without evidence; nor does it usually occur without some premonitory symptoms indicating its approach. On this branch of the case the prisoner’s counsel have introduced the testimony of Mr. O. S. Fowler, one of the most distinguished phrenologists in the United States. The science ofphrenology, or rathercranioscopy, has not yet been brought to such a state of perfection and certainty as to be received and relied upon in courts of justice. Small deviations in the scull from its perfect form, not absolutely denoting insanity, appear to be too uncertain to be relied upon in the administration of justice, without endangering the rights of individuals and the more important interests of the public. It is the opinion of the court, that the testimony of Mr. Fowler proves no such development of the animal propensities as would, of itself, justify the belief of insanity in any of its forms.The jury found the prisoner guilty of murder by lying in wait, asset forth in the second count, and not guilty on the first count. The verdict was delivered on the 4th of May, 1838, and, on the same day, after overruling a motion in arrest of judgment, the court adjudged thatthe verdict on the second countwas afinding of murder of the first degree, and pronounced the sentence ofdeath. On the 27th of July, 1838, the prisoner was executed. He made a full confession. Before and after the trial he was visited by clergymen, and appeared, after the trial, much affected with his situation in reference to a future world. Seemed truly penitent. Met death with great firmness, even assisting the sheriff in some of the last sad offices of the melancholy scene. His body was delivered to his parents for burial. They are in low circumstances, but not in absolute poverty. They have never shown as much attention to education as people generally do, and their unhappy son was said to be exceedingly illiterate.Yours, very truly,Ellis Lewis.
To the Editor of the American Phrenological Journal.
Williamsport, December 29th, 1838.
Sir,—
Absence from home on public duties has prevented, until this time, an answer to yours of the 1st ult., requesting particulars respecting the trial and execution ofWilliam Miller. I do not know that any paper contains these particulars, and I will therefore endeavour to comply with your request by the following brief statement.
William Miller was indicted for the murder of Solomon Hoffman, an offence committed in Jackson township, in this county (Lycoming), on the first day of February, 1838. On the first day of May, 1838, a jury was sworn to try the cause. The first count charged the offence in the usual manner. The second count set forth that the crime was committed “by lying in wait in, upon, and near a public highway.” The evidence on the part of the commonwealth fully established the facts following:—That Solomon Hoffman was a traveling pedlar, carrying a pack on his back; that he sojourned one night at Bastian’s tavern, situate at the edge of the woods between the Block-House settlement and Pont Run; that William Miller was a cabinet-maker, boarding at the same house; that these two individuals slept in the same room together that night; that Miller, on being urged by Hoffman in the morning to purchase goods, declined, stating that he had borrowed money from Bastians, and did not wish them to know that he had money, but proposed to purchase of Hoffman,if the latter would stop at the side of the road, in the woods, where Miller stated thathewould be engaged cutting wood, as the other passed along on his way. This was agreed to. Miller stationed himself by the way side, with his axe, for the purpose of executing his plan of destruction. The deceased soon made his appearance; and while he was stooping down to take some articles out of the pack to exhibit to Miller, the latter killed him with the axe. Having takensuch articles as he desired at the time, and all the money in the pocket book of the deceased, Miller buried the dead body and the pack under the leaves and snow, the latter being upwards of two feet deep in the woods. The deceased was a stranger—a German—and had but one relative, a brother, in this country. That brother he had engaged to meet the next day after the murder in Bloomingrove; but as he did not fulfil that appointment, the brother was alarmed, and made a most anxious and scrutinising search for the deceased, but could find no traces of him whatever after he left Bastians in the morning. The brother then came to the public house of George Duitch, in Williamsport, to proceed on his journey, giving up all hope of ascertaining the cause of the mysterious disappearance of the deceased. By what might be regarded as a singular intervention of Providence, Millercametothis tavern, which was twenty or thirty miles from his residence,introduced himselfto the brother of the deceased, and, by hisvoluntary prevaricationsandfalsehoods, excited suspicion, which, upon farther scrutiny, led to the full disclosure of his guilt.
The evidence was so full and satisfactory, that there was no room to doubt with respect to the agency of the prisoner in causing the death of Hoffman, in the manner already detailed. The counsel for the prisoner, in their anxiety to do all in their power to save his life, endeavoured to show that he was afflicted with that species of insanity calledmonomania. But the evidence on this subject consisted chiefly of the proof ofcaseswhereotherindividuals, whose minds appeared sound upon subjects in general, were nevertheless deranged upon particular subjects. The proof did not establish the fact that theprisonerwas afflicted with that species of insanity.
In the course of the trial, the prisoner’s counsel,without objection on the part of the commonwealth, introduced Mr. O. S. Fowler, the celebrated phrenologist, as a witness. He described the prisoner as of the lymphatic temperament; and stated that persons of this temperament are more apt to be deranged upon the animal passions than upon the intellectual or moral faculties. He also, among other things, described the prisoner’s phrenological developments, as they appeared to him on an examination some days previously in the prisoner’s cell. The organs ofDestructiveness,Secretiveness, andAcquisitiveness, were stated by Mr. Fowler to be immense, the head measuring about 7¼ inches in diameter from ear to ear.
In giving the instructions to the jury, I stated to them that if the evidence for the commonwealth was believed, it established a case of murder of the first degree, unless they thought proper to acquit entirely upon the ground ofinsanity. The species of insanity relied upon by the prisoner’s counsel, was that denominatedmonomania.This exists where there is adelusionononeor asmall numberof subjects, which no course of reasoning or force of evidence can remove. Every man, of mature age, ispresumedto possess a sound mind until thecontraryappears. To establish this kind of insanity,delusionmust be shown to exist on one subject, or on some small number of subjects. It was stated to the jury, that the court could perceive no sufficient evidence ofdelusionor hallucination on any subject to establish the existence ofmonomania; still, if the jury believed that the prisoner was, at the time of committing the act charged, “incapable of judging between right and wrong, and did not know that he was committing an offence against the laws of God and man,” it would be their duty to acquit; and if they did so, it would be necessary to specify in their verdict the ground of acquittal, in accordance with the act of assembly of 13th June, 1836. But (continued the court) if any insanity exists in this case, it is of that description denominatedmoral insanity. Thisarises from the existence of some of the natural propensities in such violence, that it is impossible not to yield to them. It bears a striking resemblance tovice, which is said to consist in “an undue excitement of the passions and will, and in their irregular or crooked actions leading to crime.” It is therefore to be received with the utmost scrutiny. It is notgenerallyadmitted in legal tribunals as a species of insanity which relieves from responsibility for crime, and it oughtneverto be admitted as a defence until it is shown that these propensities exist in such violence as to subjugate the intellect, control the will, and render it impossible for the party to do otherwise than yield.Where its existence is thus fully established, this species of insanity, like every other, relieves from accountability to human laws.But this state of mind is not to be presumed without evidence; nor does it usually occur without some premonitory symptoms indicating its approach. On this branch of the case the prisoner’s counsel have introduced the testimony of Mr. O. S. Fowler, one of the most distinguished phrenologists in the United States. The science ofphrenology, or rathercranioscopy, has not yet been brought to such a state of perfection and certainty as to be received and relied upon in courts of justice. Small deviations in the scull from its perfect form, not absolutely denoting insanity, appear to be too uncertain to be relied upon in the administration of justice, without endangering the rights of individuals and the more important interests of the public. It is the opinion of the court, that the testimony of Mr. Fowler proves no such development of the animal propensities as would, of itself, justify the belief of insanity in any of its forms.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of murder by lying in wait, asset forth in the second count, and not guilty on the first count. The verdict was delivered on the 4th of May, 1838, and, on the same day, after overruling a motion in arrest of judgment, the court adjudged thatthe verdict on the second countwas afinding of murder of the first degree, and pronounced the sentence ofdeath. On the 27th of July, 1838, the prisoner was executed. He made a full confession. Before and after the trial he was visited by clergymen, and appeared, after the trial, much affected with his situation in reference to a future world. Seemed truly penitent. Met death with great firmness, even assisting the sheriff in some of the last sad offices of the melancholy scene. His body was delivered to his parents for burial. They are in low circumstances, but not in absolute poverty. They have never shown as much attention to education as people generally do, and their unhappy son was said to be exceedingly illiterate.
Yours, very truly,
Ellis Lewis.
The above letters have been in our possession now for some months, and we had intended ere this, to have presented them in the pages of the Journal. But by this delay we have recently and very opportunely received, by a gentleman from Williamsport, the dying confession of William Miller. Whilst on the one hand we were surprised, in its perusal, to observe the striking coincidences between Mr. Fowler’s statements and the individual’s own confession of his private history, on the other we were shocked to read such a long series of youthful vice and crime. We doubt whether a similar instance can be found recorded in the annals of history. The facts in the case of this unfortunate young man involves many important principles in jurisprudence, education, morals, &c. &c.; but our present object is simply to present thefactsin the case.
The general facts connected with the murder are contained in the letter of Judge Lewis. But as his confession relates the particulars more in detail, preceded by a continued series of vicious and criminal conduct for fifteen years, showing the gradual process by which he became so hardened and cruel, we are induced to present the entire confession, notwithstanding its length. It is undoubtedly similar in some respects to that of many others much older than Miller, yet less experienced in crime, who end their days in the prison or on the gallows. Though young in years, he had emphatically grown old in the school of vice. We earnestly request every reader to notice the following facts in his melancholy narrative, which undoubtedly prepared the way for the number and enormity of his crimes.
His mother died when he was quite young. He was subject tolittle, if any, parental restraint and government; received, comparatively, no education, nor moral and religious instruction; early gave way to his “evil passions;” was greatly encouraged by bad associates; was not restrained by the ties of family affection, nor influenced much by any relations to friends and acquaintances, either in regard to his business or his character; first commenced stealing little things, then lying; persevered constantly in such offences for nearly fifteen years, till he finally committed robbery and murder.But it appears that he had planned several murders, and even that of hisownbrother, before the execution of his last fatal deed.
Let every reader observe, that Miller grew up with his intellectual facultiesuneducated, his moral sentimentsunenlightened, his domestic feelingsbut little exercised, and his selfish propensities and sentimentsunrestrained. We need not say, that these facts involve important principles in the true physiology of the brain and the science of mind.
The facts in the confession should also be compared with the statements of Mr. Fowler’s letter. It is due to state, that Mr. F. has never seen this confession, nor the letter of Judge Lewis—that he knows nothing of the contents of either, and there is no reason to doubt his statement concerning his knowledge of Miller’srealcharacter. A phrenologist will readily perceive that, from the data first taken by Mr. F., even a darker portrait might have been drawn on strict scientific principles, than what Mr. F.’s letter presents. We have italicised some parts of the confession which strikingly accord with the phrenological descriptions.
[3]This case affords an additional confirmation of the truth of a physiological hypothesis, to which I have been led by numerous observations, and which, if true, is of considerable importance: viz. that thenervousandnervous bilioustemperaments favour the manifestation of themoralandintellectualfaculties, thesanguineandlymphatic, that of the organs located in the basilar and posterior region of the brain. I have never found, within the walls of a prison, a purelynervousornervous bilioustemperament.
[3]This case affords an additional confirmation of the truth of a physiological hypothesis, to which I have been led by numerous observations, and which, if true, is of considerable importance: viz. that thenervousandnervous bilioustemperaments favour the manifestation of themoralandintellectualfaculties, thesanguineandlymphatic, that of the organs located in the basilar and posterior region of the brain. I have never found, within the walls of a prison, a purelynervousornervous bilioustemperament.
[3]This case affords an additional confirmation of the truth of a physiological hypothesis, to which I have been led by numerous observations, and which, if true, is of considerable importance: viz. that thenervousandnervous bilioustemperaments favour the manifestation of themoralandintellectualfaculties, thesanguineandlymphatic, that of the organs located in the basilar and posterior region of the brain. I have never found, within the walls of a prison, a purelynervousornervous bilioustemperament.
I was born in York county, in the state of Pennsylvania, A. D. 1815. My mother died when I was eleven years of age. Mynatural disposition, from myearliest infancy, was grossly depraved. I seemed fatally bent on mischief, and had arelishfordark and secret crime; and never having received any religious education or instruction, (except from occasionally hearing the gospel preached,) myevil passionsandmaliceof my nature grew with my growth, and strengthened with my years. Before my imprisonment, I had not learned any principles of religion or precepts of morality, by which I could discover the full deformity of my character, or the deep wickedness of my conduct. The after survey of my acts and conduct, and thereview of my crimes, were scarcely ever attended, with a feeling of regret. I seemed too spell bound, in my evil to relent; andmy conduct so accorded with my evil passions thatreflection was without remorse.I was greatly addicted totheft. But I stole not through want so much as through thegratification of my wicked disposition.This dispositionwas carried into action first when I wasnine yearsof age. I then stole an half dollar from my father, and gave it to my mother. I told her I had found it. She believed me, and bought a handkerchief for me with it.
Some time after the death of my mother, my father and family removed from York county to Lycoming county, and resided in the Block-house settlement. I lived with the family there till I attained the age of nineteen years.
During my stay at the Block-house settlement, previously to learning a trade, Istole a pocket knifewhile at a religious meeting, held at the house of Mr. Knodle. I then became more bold, and having discovered where Samuel Hartman kept his money, Iattempted to robhim, by breaking into his drawer; but in that I did not succeed. Soon after this, I was living a short time in the family of Mrs. Bastian, who then, and always, treated me with great kindness. Istolefrom her twenty-five cents.
I next went to the borough of York, for the purpose of acquiring a trade, and became an apprentice to Joseph Spangler, a cabinet maker of that place, with whom I continued two years. At York I fell into very bad company. I found there were others in the world, nearly, if not quite as bad as myself; and wickedness is greatly encouraged with countenance and company.We were frequently engaged in robbing orchards, stealing apples, peaches, &c.
The first winter I lived at York, Istolebetween four and five dollars from Mr. Spangler. I took it out of a small chest I found in his bed room. One of my shop-mates was blamed for it, but I now declare him innocent of the crime.
Ifrequently stole segars and tobaccofrom the store of George Small, in York, and gave them to my associates, who had previously requested me to do so.
After my apprenticeship was ended, I was employed as cabinet maker for a short time, by John Beck, in York. Istolefrom him, at different times, such articles as I needed to finish some furniture I was making for myself, such as paints, varnish, &c. I was strongly suspected for this;but I lied them out of it, and contended most strenuously that I hadboughtall the articles I used.
Shortly after this, I lived a short time with Jacob Lehr, in Freystown, near York. While there, a harvest frolic was held at Mrs. Smithmoyer’s. I knew that all of Daniel Louck’s family would be at the frolic; consequently, I went to his house, broke in through one of the windows, opened a desk with a key of my own, andtook out a pocket book, as I then supposed, full of money. I then left the house as I entered it; and on my way home through the fields, I examined the pocket book, and found that it contained nothing but papers which I could not read. I threw the pocket book and papers into some bushes that grew in a field belonging to Mr. Diehl. All the money I got on that occasion was about one dollar and fifty cents in silver. I never heard that I was suspected of this theft.
About the same time of the above occurrence, I was working in harvest at Mr. Diehl’s, and I thenstole two five dollar bank notes, which I saw lying on the porch of their house; I was never suspected for this, and never heard any enquiry made about it.
Shortly after this happened, I went again to Daniel Louck’s, and found that all the family were from home except three of the women. Afterstaying a short time, I lay down in the hall of the house, as it were, for the purpose of resting. After lying a short time, I discovered that the ladies had all gone out to take a walk in the garden. I then arose, and went to the same desk I had opened before. I also applied the key I had formerly used, opened the desk, andtook out a pocket book containing fifty dollars in bank notes. Even this created no suspicion against me, that I know of. I also frequented the house of Mrs. Smithmoyer, in that neighbourhood, andstole from her cakes, confectionaries, and occasionally somesmall sums of money.
I returned in 183- to the Block-house settlement;my evil propensitiesincreasing by former successful indulgence, and by being able to avoid suspicion, I commenced the cabinet making business for myself, at the house of Mrs. Bastian, with whom I had lived a short time before I went to York to acquire a trade. Mrs. Bastian’s residence is situated in the northern part of Lycoming county, at the foot of Laurel Hill, on the post road from Williamsport to Wellsborough. The country immediately around is composed of high and broken mountains, covered with thick and dark forests. The road often for great lengths without a house, and not very frequently traveled—generally as lonely as the pathway of a wilderness. I did not at first settle there for the purposes for which I afterwards saw it possessed so many advantages. But it very soon occurred to me, that I had chosen an excellent situation forrobbery,theft, andmurder,on which my mind was now fully bent.
I re-commenced my unfortunate career at the Block-house, byfirst stealingfrom Mrs. Bastian fifteen dollars, and frequently afterwards, such sums as I needed, to the amount of about five dollars more. I had the confidence of the family, and free access to every part of the house, which greatly facilitated my thefts. I was not suspected of these crimes until just before my last arrest, when some money was accidentally found in my pocket which was identified as a part of the money that had been taken. This induced them to suspect me strongly, butI denied it with great firmness and constancy to the last.
Some time in the fall of 1837, a drover (whose name I do not know) passing through the settlement, stopped for a short time at Mrs. Bastian’s house. At first sight, I supposed him to havea large amount of money, and immediately determined to murder him. For this purpose, before he could have time to pursue his journey, I hastened to the woods with an axe, and cut a large club, which I thought more suitable for the purpose, it being longer and more easily handled than the axe, and yet sufficiently large for the fatal execution. I then concealed myself close by the road he would pass, and not far from the scene of my last dread crime. I then waited, planning the manner of my attack. I expected he would be riding slowly and listlessly along, that I could spring upon him by surprise, knock him from his horse, and despatch him before he could make resistance. The drover was a large man and had an excellent horse. When I saw him coming, contrary to my expectation, he was riding rapidly, and consequently I could not have a good opportunity to aim a fatal blow. I then reflected that if I should miss him, or wound him slightly, he would be too strong for me, and I should be detected, and so I let him pass. ButI felt disappointed, and wished very much to kill him, and if I thought I could have succeeded, would certainly have murdered him. I saw him afterwards pass through the settlement again, but I made no further attempt upon his life.
Not long after the failure of my design against the drover, Michael Knipe, a blacksmith, was traveling from the Block-house towards Lycoming creek, and called at Mrs. Bastian’s. He had previouslyincurred my ill-will, and I felt somerevengeful feelings towards him. I learned also that he hadsome money. I thendetermined to murder him, with the double motive of wreaking my vengeance and getting his money. For this purpose I proposed accompanying him on his way. We traveled amicably together until we came to the Six Mile Spring. Therepretendingthat I was tired, and needed a staff to walk with, I went into the woods and cut a club, with which, at a proper place, I intended to despatch my fellow-traveler. But as we traveled on, still conversing amicably together, my murderous feelings began to subside a little, and I became more irresolute, until having passed the most appropriate places for so dark a deed, I finally gave over murdering him; and so we traveled, as far as I went with him, without any thing actually occurring to show that we were not the best friends.
The awful murder for which I am shortly to suffer the just penalty of the law, occurred on Thursday, the first day of February, 1838. Solomon Hoffman, a foot pedler, called at Mrs. Bastian’s the day previous to the murder, on his way to Lycoming creek. At that time I was particularly ill-tempered, on account of spoiling some furniture I was making. My shop stood near Mrs. Bastian’s house. The same afternoon that Hoffman arrived, I had occasion to go into the house, and saw him with his pack open, offering his goods for sale to the family. He asked me if I would buy any thing. I told him I could not. I then returned to my shop, and continued to work till supper time. I took my supper in company with Hoffman; and during supper it occurred to meto rob him, and I resolved to do so the next day. After supper we conversed a while in the bar-room, and then he accompanied me to my shop.
Hoffman continued at my shop for some time, and we conversed principally about my trade; I told him I could make sales enough, but could get no cash. He returned to the house again; I continued to work till late, and then went to the house also. We then soon retired; Hoffman and I slept in the same room. As I lay in bed, I thought of the difficulty of highway robbery escaping detection, and came to the conclusion that I had better attemptto kill him, although I had failed in two previous attempts. I did not sleep well, thinking about it;I felt no fear or horror of the crime, but I did not know how I could accomplish it.I woke up frequently during the night and thought on the subject, and my disposition to murder him still grew stronger, and in the morning I was fully resolved, if I could get an opportunity at all, I would kill him. I got up early in the morning, and Hoffman rose shortly after. I then got my axe and whet it. He asked me what I would do with the axe. I told him I was going to the woods to chop. He then asked me again if I would not buy some goods from him. On asking me this question, a plan instantly occurred to me of luring him into the woods and executing my fell purpose. So I told him I would not buy any goods at Bastian’s house, and gave him as a reason for not buying there, that I had borrowed some money from Bastian’s, that I had not repaid, and therefore did not wish them to know that I had any; but I told him, if it was not too cold for him to come to me in the woods where I would be chopping, I would buy from him there. Hoffman replied to this, that he would go on in the stage that day. I answered he might if he pleased. He then changed his determination, and he was only going to Blooming-grove, and would walk and stop with me where I was chopping.
Upon his saying this, I designated where on the road he would find me, and told him he could hear me chopping from that place, and so find precisely where I was; and having said this, I went off immediately towards the woods. After proceeding a short distance, I overtookWilliam Folkerson, of the Block-house settlement, driving a sled. He had started from Bastian’s a short time before I did. He asked me what I was going to do. I told him I was going to cut back-logs. We had no other conversation. This was the man whom I at first blamed with the murder, but who, I now solemnly declare, as I shall answer to God, is entirely innocent of it. And I sincerely hope he will forgive me for making this most false and dreadful charge. After Mr. Folkerson passed on, I went into the woods at the appointed place, and hunted round, but could find no trees to suit me. I then went down into the road expecting Hoffman. Then went back into the woods again, and found trees to suit. I cut one down, and was going to the second, when Hoffman came to me. He first addressed me, saying it is cold. I replied, tolerable. He then placed his pack on the log I had cut, opened his goods and handed them out. I walked up to him with my axe in my hand, and placed it down by the stump of the tree. I then selected from his goods a pair of gloves and a handkerchief, and told him I would take these. Then I suddenly became a little irresolute, and had almost told him I had no money; but in an instantI again resolved“kill him I will.” He then stood bending down looking at his goods. I stood partly behind him, and taking up the axe, gave him a hard blow with the pole on the back part of the head. He fell dead on his side the first blow.I stood and looked at him for a moment, and then gave him three or four more blows on the back and side of the head.
Then for a moment I looked up to heaven, and cried three times tolerably loud, Lord Jesus! what have I done!! I then took up Hoffman, and carried him a short distance and threw him behind a hemlock log. I was not satisfied with this, and took him up again and carried him further, and then removed him, and covered him in the place at which he was found. I tried to bury him, but could not succeed well, the ground was too hard. I intended, as soon as I could, to remove him from that and bury him securely. On the same day I hid his pack, only taking out a few articles for the present. I found on his person about one hundred dollars in money, and some other small articles, which I took then. The week after the murder, I went to Williamsport and bought some goods from Mr. Updegraff, which I paid for, or nearly all, with Hoffman’s money. I also, at the same time, bought some articles from Dr. Power, and paid him in the same way, and at the same timestole from him one dollar in money, and several chisels of different kinds. When I returned, Bastians asked me where I got the goods.I told them my father had given me money, and I also had bought goods on trust. In short, I stole and robbed every chance I could get, from my cradle to the day of my imprisonment.
I wish now further to declare, that no false evidence was delivered against me at my trial.
I am sincerely thankful to the officers of justice, ministers, and counsel, for their uniform kindness to me.
I now pray the world to forgive me the many injuries I have done, as I hope I will freely forgive all who have injured me.
Before my emigration to York, when the family were all on the farm together, at a certain time which I cannot now recollect, I was thenabout fourteen years old, and for thefirst time was tempted to murder. In the absence of my father, my brother Michael had the management of his father’s affairs, and the government of us children given to him. My brother was very strict with us and tried to make us do what was right, and on failing to do so, he would chastise us,which created a hatred in my breast towards him, and I determined in my own mind to destroy him. To carry out this determination, I gathered vegetable poison from trees, mixed it in soup, and intended fully to give it to him, and did so.My brother saw something in his soup that did not please him, took up his plate, went to the door, and threw it out, which saved him. I do now sincerely pray Almighty God to forgive me, and I humbly pray my brother to forgive me for attempting to make him suffer so awful a death. After my return from York, while living at Bastian’s, I went into the Block-house settlement on some business which I do not now recollect; on my way home, after doing my business, I stopped a while at John Howard’s barn, looking at some hands engaged in threshing with a machine. There came a stranger riding by—it immediately occurred to me that I might follow and murder him, if he was not a methodist preacher. I did follow him, and cut a good club to put my designs into execution. He took the new road, I took the old one, and intended to overtake him at the place where the two roads met; but when I came to the place where I expected to meet him, luckily for himself, he got past before I reached the place, and I never saw him more. The reason why I intended not to kill him if he was a preacher, was,that clergymen never have money, and are considered poor game. This was in the fall of the year.
After this, in the winter, I was in at Messrs. Benners’ store, in the Block-house settlement, and introduced some conversation with respect to some mahogany that I wanted to make some bureaus, and asked Elias Benner when he expected to go to Philadelphia. He told me he could not say to a certainty, but thought some time in the spring. I then asked him if he would let me know when he did go, that I would go as far as Williamsport, and there make arrangements with him to buy mahogany and other materials I wanted.This plan was laid by me to murder him on the way, as I knew he would have money; but, fortunately for himself, ere the time arrived, I committed the awful deed for which I must soon suffer, and the prison became my home, or he too might now be in eternity.
Not long after this,I had also intended to murder David Raker, for this reason; in a conversation with him at his house, he told me he wasgoing to collect money; he did go, called at my shop—we had some conversation, which I do not now recollect; but while there,I forgot this determination, why or wherefore I cannot say, but sure I am it was no goodness in me. I alsostolefrom Jacob Bastian, in the Block-house settlement, screws and nails, as I had opportunity when at work there. I alsointended robbing my brother Daniel’s chestin Blooming-grove, cannot say whether I did or did not. The last winter I worked at York,I intended robbingDr. Ness, went up stairs, rummaged his bureau, &c. but found no money.
I alsowent to rob my cousin, Daniel Seib, in York; he told me he had $400 in his chest; I went to the chest, opened and searched for the money, but found none, and was much disappointed.
I alsointended robbingJames Dinkle’s chest, but could not get it open. James Dinkle is a mulatto, and then lived with Daniel Louck, at Diehl’s mill, near York. About a month before I left my master, Mr. Spangler, Istolefrom him a hammer and a two foot rule, which I broughtto the Block-house with me. I alsorobbedmy shop-mate, John Smith, of about fifty cents, which he left in the garden house and forgot. Soon as he came out I went in, found it, put it in my pocket. He missed it, soon went back, and it was gone. Soon as he returned he charged me with it;I lied him out of it; he then gave me clear, and blamed a black boy belonging to Mr. Kelly.
The first harvest, whilst reaping for Jacob Kindig, on Mr. Longenecker’s farm, in the eveningI stolea sickle out of the field, whom it belonged to I do not know. I alsostolea board from Daniel Wiser, in York, to make myself a chest.
I alsostolefrom William Stine’s store, mint-sticks, and attempted to rob his money drawer, but found it locked.
Taken June 30, 1838, before Jacob Grafius, Reverends J. F. Abele and G. Schulze, as substantially correct, and whereunto I have subscribed my name or mark in their presence.
Witnesses present:
X
William Miller.
his mark.