EDITOR'S TABLE. 



121 



ig no such thing as altruistic suicide. Sui- 

 cide is characterized by the intention to take 

 one's own life. A voluntary death charac- 

 terized by the intention to save life is cer- 

 tainly not suicide. To constitute suicide 

 there must be criminal motive, just as in 

 the case of any other crime. It must be 

 felo de se ; in its simplest statement, self- 

 murder. This, in fact, is the definition of 

 Blackstone : . " The act of designedly de- 

 stroying one's own life committed by a per- 

 son of years of discretion and of sound 

 mind; self-murder." It must be distin- 

 guished, that is, from simple voluntary death, 

 as murder is distinguished from simple homi- 

 cide. There must be the intent to destroy 

 life from a selfish or malign motive. The 

 unjustifiable motive in the case of the sui- 

 cide is the selfish desire to terminate life, 

 and thus avoid some present or threatened 

 evil, without regard to the evil or unhappi- 

 ness inflicted on survivors. In the strong- 

 est case that can be put, that of an aged 

 man who feels that he is a burden on his 

 friends (or those who should be such), a 

 pure and unselfish motive would incline him 

 rather to inflict that burden on them than 

 the far heavier burden and disgrace of a 

 (to him) criminal and (to them) criminating 

 death. 



For the rest and to embrace under one 

 head all Mr. Hopkins's illustrations of altru- 

 istic suicides, viz., heroes, martyrs, and en- 

 gineers the man who dies defending or 

 maintaining a trust is in no sense a suicide. 

 His death is made to him, by moral reasons, 

 inevitable. 



W. W. Lord. 



Coopebstow.v, New Toek, March 10, 1830. 



"ORIGIN OF CRIMINAL LAW." 



Messrs. Editors. 



Charles J. Bcell calls attention in your 

 April number to some statements in Mr. W. 

 W. Billson's article, "The Origin of Crim- 

 inal Law," illustrating the way in which 

 early law-makers seem to have taken the 

 revengeful feelings of the aggrieved parties 



into consideration in imposing punishments 

 upon wrong-doers. 



He says : " There appears to be some- 

 thing of this sort in the custom that will 

 hold a man blameless if he shoot and kill 

 the midnight robber who is merely trying to 

 effect an entrance into his house, but will 

 not hold him guiltless if he take the same 

 sort of vengeance on the robber after he has 

 once entered the house and stolen the goods 

 and escaped with them." 



This law is based upon a principle as 

 far as possible from the idea of gratifying 

 the injured party's sense of revenge. 



When a man awakes in the night-time 

 and finds another man trying to get into his 

 house, he is not obliged to ask him if he 

 intends to steal or murder. The man with- 

 in may be timid ; he may apprehend great 

 personal danger ; he may have the impres- 

 sion that an attempt is being made to mur- 

 der him. The law protects him in acting 

 upon such apprehension. This is simply 

 6elf-defense. There is no question of anger 

 or revenge about it. 



Now, when the robber has made off with 

 the goods, and all possible fear of personal 

 violence has vanished, or can not possibly 

 arise, it then becomes a question, merely, of 

 the " prevention of crime." Society ignores 

 all idea of carrying out the spirit of revenge 

 that may fill the breast of the injured party 

 in fact punishes him, if he attempts to 

 do so himself, as a criminal. Clearly, what- 

 ever may have been the guiding principle of 

 the ancient law-giver, our present legislators 

 do not attempt to administer to personal 

 resentment. The object and reasons for the 

 existence of government have been inquired 

 into, and a scientific basis is gradually build- 

 ing for the great modern structure to rest 

 upon. The passions are found to be the 

 most unsafe guides. Only a few rules of 

 law, relating almost wholly to domestic rela- 

 tions, rest upon them. The consequence is, 

 that these relations figure most disgustingly 

 in the proceedings of courts. 



Yours respectfully, 



W. C. Albro, LL. B. 

 Pocghxeepsie, New Yoek, March 19, 1880. 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



MATTHEW ARNOLD ON COP TRIG HI. 



THE question of international copy- 

 right, as we have maintained on 

 all occasions, is for the people of this 

 country a very serious one. It is com- 

 monly regarded that our present con- 

 dition in respect to it is merely an im- 

 perfect state of things which nobody 



knows how to remedy, and which need 

 not much disquiet us, as it is happily 

 working very much to our advantage. 

 Why, it is asked, should we pick a 

 quarrel with our own bread and butter, 

 especially when the bread is buttered 

 so thickly on both sides ? 



The reason why the matter is grave 



