The notorious Thaw case has now, for upward of two years, abused the public ear, outraged the public decency and cost thousands upon thousands out of the public funds. It has grown excessively fatiguing and, certainly, any attempts to revive a flagging interest in it ought to be visited with general disapproval. But we are assured, and rightly assured, by Judge Pryor in the public prints, that there is, to borrow the phrase of the weather bureau, No relief in sight; since Thaw, at any time he may see fit, can renew his application for freedom and rehearse the whole tedious detail over again, repeating his attempt until he is successful or death comes to his or our relief. This being so, he will, perhaps, succeed, for the people's patience will break down finally under insistent clamor; and that will be yielded to importunity which to justice has been denied. In this posture of affairs, a well-meant effort to chase away this nightmare-to suggest such changes in our practice and our laws as will save us from the same interminable consequences in future similar cases-ought to be considered as standing on a different footing from that on which rests a proposal to rehash the case itself and should be entitled to a more respectful reception. In almost every jurisdiction, the law relating to insanity as a defense to crime will be found, I believe, to be in a more or less confused condition; in general, not susceptible of being expressed in terms of scientific precision, and losing itself, at critical points, in meaningless or vague phrases. The principal causes of this unsatisfactory state of the law can be, I think, briefly indicated.