Morning journal and courier., 1881-09-19
Monday Morning, Sep. 19, 1881.
GUITEAU AND THE LAW.

M0nuuy mOTnlISs SoDs lSa l.
 GUITEAU AND THE LAW.
 The questions whether Guiteau could be
 dent should die outside the District or
 whether he could be tried in New Jersey if the
 President should die there are now under dis
 cussion. Sundry decisions at common law as
 well as under the statutes of some of the
 States have been cited to show that when a
 wound is inflicted in one jurisdiction and
 death ensues therefrom in another jurisdic-
 tion the crime of murder has not been com
 mitted. A Washington lawyer reviews the
 to the conclusion that if the President should
 die outside the District of Columbia Guiteau
 could not be lawfully tried and convicted in
 the District. A case in point is that of the
 United States vs. Bladen, tried before the
 old Circuit Court Of the District of Columbia,
 the predecessor of the present Supreme Court of the District, and reported in
 Cranch, Circuit Court Reports, 54S. In this case it appears that the mortal wound was in f1icted by the defendant in Alexandria (then a part of the District) and that the injured party died from the effects of it in St. Mary's County, Maryland The court held that the offense of murder was not completed within it's jurisdiction, and that it could only try the defendant for the assault and battery perpe- trated in the District.
 But in the event of the Presidents death at Long Branch, could Guiteau be tried in New Jersey The question involved has, according to the Repu6hica7a's lawyer, been decided both ways by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The case of the State vs. Car ter was determined at the February term in 1859. The indictment charged that the de- fendant on the 29th of December, 1858, in the city of New York. gave one Brushing ham several mortal bruises, of which, on the 31st of December, 1858, he died in Hudson county, in the State of New Jersey, and to illustrate the line of argument in the decis- ion we make few extracts:
 Nothing was done by the defendant in this State. When the blow was given both parties were out of it's jurisdiction and with in the jurisdiction of the State of New York. * Here no act is done in this State by the defendant The coming of the party injured was his own voluntary act, and in no way the act of the defendant. If the defendant is liable here at all 1t must be solely because the deceased came here and died here after he was injured Can that, in the nature of things, make the defendant guilty of murder manslaughter here? But I cannot make myself believe that the Legis- lature in that act intended to embrace cases where the injury was inflicted within for eign jurisdiction, without any act done by the defendant within our own. Such Gn en- Gctnae7t, upon general principles, ao0aEd 7aeces sa1Izy 6e 0eid it would give the courts of this State jurisdiction over all the subjects of all the governments of the earth, with pow CT to try and punish them, if they could by force or fraud get possession of thelr per sons, in all cases where personal injuries are followed by death.
 The court held in this case that no crime against the State charged in the indict- ment. The concluding portion of the opin- ion was as follows:
 It is said that if we do not take jurisdiction the defendant will go unpunished, inasmuch as the party injured not dying in New York he could not be guilty of murder there. But New York may provide by law for such cases, and if she does not it is their fault and not ours The deed is done against their sover eighty, and if she does not choose to avenge 1t, it is not for us to step in and do it for them.
 This decision was under a statute identical l with the one now relied on for the punish l ment of Guiteau in New Jersey if the Presi- ! dent should die there. Fortunately, howev- CT, the same court has decided the other way on the same question. The case of Hunter came before the court at November term, l 1878, on a writ of error from the county of Camden, where the prisoner had been tried and convicted of murder in the first degree. l It was claimed that the judgment below ought l to be reversed, 'sbecause John M Armstrong; who is alleged to have been murdered by the prisoner, died out of the State of New Jersey and in the State of Pennsylvania. and within | the separate territory and exclusive juris- 1 diction of that State'' In this case the I mortal blow was struck in Camden | county, New Jersey and the injured l party died in Philadelphia. The court came 1 to diametrically different conclusion from l that announced in the case against Garter, and | referring to the right of the State to claim | jurisdiction over extra territorial crimes under 1 such circumstances, said: Ut has been de- | cided by courts whose decisions entitled | to the highest respect to be legitimate e1 ercise of the powers of government" and | cites the case of The Commonwealth vs. Mac | loon, 1O1 Mass, l, and number of English | authorities.
 Let us hope that the President will live and that there will be no need for the Supreme Court of New Jersey to make another guess at the meaning of the law. If. however, he does not live, we have no doubt that some law will be found which will apply to his as- saSSin