Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1881-09-21
Can Guiteau he Convicted +?

Editor Morning Nesos: In the NEWS
of the 10th instant an article is
copied from the Washington Star, in
which the writer contends that
the removal of the President to Long
Branch would, in the event of fatal
termination of his injuries while at that
place, preclude the possibility of con-
victing his assassin of murder. In other
words, the proposition is broadly assert
ed that when mortal wound is inflicted
in the District of Columbia, from the
effects of which death ensues in the
State of New Jersey, the courts
of the district would have no jurisdiction
of the offense as ahomicide. The article
is evidently the production of q legal
mind, and from the fact that the Star
permits the use Of its columns in COM
municating his views. the writer's opin-
ions are entitled to respect. A careful
consideration, however, of the authori-
ties bearing upon this subject clearly
lead US to a different conclusion. 1t is
true, as the Star writer says, that the courts
of England once doubted whether, if a
blow were inflicted in one county and
death from the blow followed in another,
the offense could be prosecuted in either;
but these were ancient opinions, and
even then the better opinion was that the
offense might be prosecuted in the coun-
ty where the stroke was given. Hale,
P. G. 426; LIST East, P. G. S61-3-5, ct
SEQ. / Hawk, P. G. 9th ed, C. 81, s IS.
The opinion of the Mississippi Court
of Errors and Appeals. which held, in
Stoughton vs. the State, that "by the
common law where the blow was given in
one county and the death happened in
another, the offender was not liable in
either, is not entitled to any weight as
authority, because the statutes 2 and
Edw. 6 c. "a, section2, which was com
mon law in this country long before Mis-
sissippi became State, expressly
provides chat, when any person or per-
sons hereafter shall be feloniousIy strick-
en- or poisoned in one county, and die of
the same stroke or poisoning in another
county, that then, an indictment thereof,
founder by jurors of the county where
the death shall happen, ETC., shall be as
good and effectual in the law as if the
stroke or poisoning had been committed
and done in the same county where
the party shall die, or where
such indictment shall be founder" Mr..
Bishop, after an exhaustive discussion
of this question in his Criminal Proce-
dure, volume l, section 81, epItomizes
his views upon the subject in the follow
ing language: but the true view ap-
pears to be that the blow is murder or
not according as it produces death with
in year and day or not and, there
fore, in all cases an indictment lies in
the county where the blow was given.
Speaking of the case o. the Common
wealth VS.. Linton, 2 Virginia, cas- 205.
cited The Star writer, this learned
author in the same paragraph says:
"And, therefore, we may doubt
the soundness of Virginia
decision holding that, when a man is
stabbed in one State and dies of his
wounds in another, the offender cannot
be held in the former State for the muir
der" In support of these views the learn
ed author cites Rileys case, 9 Huhph.,
SAG, in which the Star writer says the
subject is considered, and also Pauley's
case, - Wis, 537. and Box VS.. Burdett,
4 B and Aid 95, 173. The New Jersey
case cited does not throw any light upon
the subject, from the fact that Carter
should have been indicted in the State
of New York, where the fatal blow was
given.
Upon the whole, it need not be feared
that any trouble will arise upon the ques-
ton of extradition suggested by the
News, for it is quite clear that the courts
of the District of Columbia have juris-
diction In the case x