Part 4

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 always _justify 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 real character 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 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,

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 the _facts_ in 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 to little, 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 his _own_ brother, before the execution of his last fatal deed.

Let every reader observe, that Miller grew up with his intellectual faculties _uneducated_, his moral sentiments _unenlightened_, his domestic feelings _but little exercised_, and his selfish propensities and sentiments _unrestrained_. 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’s _real_ character. 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 the _nervous_ and _nervous bilious_ temperaments favour the manifestation of the _moral_ and _intellectual_ faculties, the _sanguine_ and _lymphatic_, 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 purely _nervous_ or _nervous bilious_ temperament.

THE CONFESSION OF WILLIAM MILLER,

_Who was convicted of the murder of Solomon Hoffman, and executed at Williamsport, Lycoming county, Penn., on the 27th of July, 1838; made in the presence of the sheriff and attending ministers, June 7, 1838._

I was born in York county, in the state of Pennsylvania, A. D. 1815. My mother died when I was eleven years of age. My _natural disposition_, from my _earliest infancy, was grossly depraved. I seemed fatally bent on mischief_, and had a _relish_ for _dark and secret crime_; and never having received any religious education or instruction, (except from occasionally hearing the gospel preached,) my _evil passions_ and _malice_ of 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 the _review of my crimes, were scarcely ever attended, with a feeling of regret. I seemed too spell bound, in my evil to relent_; and _my conduct so accorded with my evil passions that reflection was without remorse._ I was greatly addicted to _theft_. But I stole not through want so much as through the _gratification of my wicked disposition_. _This disposition_ was carried into action first when I was _nine years_ of 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, I _stole a pocket knife_ while 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, I _attempted to rob_ him, 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. I _stole_ from 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, I _stole_ between 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.

I _frequently stole segars and tobacco_ from 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. I _stole_ from 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 had _bought_ all 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, and _took 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 then _stole 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. After staying 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, and _took 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, and _stole from her cakes, confectionaries_, and occasionally some _small sums of money_.

I returned in 183- to the Block-house settlement; _my evil propensities_ increasing 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 for _robbery_, _theft_, and _murder_, _on which my mind was now fully bent_.

I re-commenced my unfortunate career at the Block-house, by _first stealing_ from 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, but _I denied it with great firmness and constancy to the last_.