tempt suicide." (N. Y. Penal Code, 172— 178.) While I cannot claim to have made a thorough investigation, I have reason to suppose that unsuccessful suicides are seldom indicted in any State of the Union. To my mind the condition of the law is extremely unsatisfactory. As far as any legal principle is concerned, any person has as much right to die as to live. With great respect, I beg to submit a few words upon this subject. What I am about to write may, perhaps, be more applicable to Great Britain than to the United States; but I believe it worthy of the consideration of every lawyer. There are, I think, two practicable courses open to the reformer, and two only. One is to repeal all legislation upon the subject: to cease to regard suicide, or attempted suicide as a crime. The other is to pass a statute expressly providing that attempted self-de struction is conclusive proof of dangerous insanity. The latter course might be ob jected to because, while Esquirol (1772— 1840) and other French alienists held that all suicides were insane, no American or Eng lish alienist now living takes that view. No body denies, of course, that suicide is strong evidence of a tendency towards insanity. It would be much more satisfactory to le galize attempted suicide, than to call it a crime and let the majority of the cases go un punished. There are absolutely no grounds for believing that the legalization of suicide would cause an increase in the number of cases of self-destruction. The individual who has determined to die attacks his life with the intention and the hope of killing himself, and the knowledge that he may be punished, if unsuccessful, can only have the effect of making his efforts to succeed as desperate and determined as possible. I doubt if any competent observer supposes that the recog nition of suicide as an offense, and the crimi nality, more nominal than actual, of at tempted suicide has any effect in reducing the annual number of persons who attempt to take their lives.

I have suggested that if a statute were passed which compelled the court to sen tence all attempted suicides to confinement in an asylum, the law would not be altogether unreasonable. But it would not be quite logical, because, as I have already said, all would-be suicides are not insane. Neverthe less, confinement in an asylum would be much more humane than locking them up in a jail, where they, not infrequently, ac complish their object. There is very little to be urged, however, in favor of this system, and a great deal might be said against it. It would not cause any decrease in. the ex penditure of Boards of Charities and Cor rection; it would not be likely to act as a deterrent; it could hardly be expected to save the lives of those who are quite deter mined to die in spite of every effort of their friends. Some reform is most urgently needed to prevent jurors at. inquests perjuring them selves by returning verdicts of" Suicide dur ing temporary insanity," when there is con clusive evidence of the sanity of the deceased. In the days of civil disability in cases of sui cide, this was done to evade the law, so that his estate might not suffer. It is now done in the mistaken belief that an insane suicide leaves no stigma upon his relatives. No greater error can be conceived. Insanity in any family is as great a blot as suicide; and the latter is, in the majority of cases, a symp tom of the former. Lunacy and self-destruc tion both " run in families"; and hereditary predisposition plays a prominent part in both calamities. Every coroner ought to make a point of impressing upon juries that there is no more disgrace in being driven to suicide than in becoming insane. The man who is not predisposed to suicide may in some few instances be driven to self-destruction; but such cases are rare, and the circumstances are always very exceptional. In the same way, some few men, not predisposed to in sanity, may become crazy as the result of some terrific strain.