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 of WILLIAM
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 that _he_ would 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 taken such 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,
Miller _came_ to _this tavern_, which was twenty or thirty
miles from his residence, _introduced himself_ to the brother
of the deceased, and, by his _voluntary prevarications_ and
_falsehoods_, 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 called _monomania_. But
the evidence on this subject consisted chiefly of the proof of
_cases_ where _other_ individuals, whose minds appeared sound
upon subjects in general, were nevertheless deranged upon
particular subjects. The proof did not establish the fact that
the _prisoner_ was 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 of _Destructiveness_, _Secretiveness_, and
_Acquisitiveness_, 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 of
_insanity_. The species of insanity relied upon by the
prisoner’s counsel, was that denominated _monomania_. This
exists where there is a _delusion_ on _one_ or a _small number_
of subjects, which no course of reasoning or force of evidence
can remove. Every man, of mature age, is _presumed_ to possess
a sound mind until the _contrary_ appears. To establish this
kind of insanity, _delusion_ must 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
of _delusion_ or hallucination on any subject to establish the
existence of _monomania_; 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 denominated
MORAL INSANITY. This _arises 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 to
_vice_, 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 not _generally_ admitted in
legal tribunals as a species of insanity which relieves from
responsibility for crime, and it ought _never_ to 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 of PHRENOLOGY,
or rather CRANIOSCOPY, 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,
as set 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 that _the verdict on the second
count_ was a _finding of murder of the first degree_, and
pronounced the sentence of DEATH. 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,