National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-09-23
Can Guitoau he Tried in the District ?


Can Guitcau he Tried In the District ?
As this question is attracting public
attention. it is important TO understand
where the difficulty will be, If there is
any, in bringing this monster to trial for
murder in this District.
1t will probably not be seriously dis
puted that at common law, the fatal
wound having been inflicted in the Dis
trict and the President having died in
New Jersey, the party who inflicted the
wound could not be convicted in the Dis
trict of murder.
The question, therefore, must be con-
sidered 1cLether there is any statute wlich has
changed This rulc.
In an evening paper of yesterday the
following is quoted as showing that the
common law rules above alluded to have
been changed by statute:
ssEc. 73i When any ofense against the United
States is begun IN one judicial district and COM
pleted In another 1t shall be deemed to have
been committed in either and may be Dealt with,
inquired Of tried, determined, and punished in
either district, in the same manner Us II 1t had
been actually and wholly committed therein.
Two things are important to be noted,
if this is relied upon-it provides for q
case where the offense is Jegm in
one district and completed in another
Does not this have reference wholly to
acts of the ofender-a beginning by him
in one jurisdictiops2pd completion by
him in the othe, Jurisdiction? As crimi-
nal statutes are to be strictly construed,
the suggestion above may not be un-
worthy of consideration before an at
tempt is made to punish this wretch in
this District.
But there is another matter in con-
nection with this provision of the statute
that is of interest and may cut some figure
if the prosecution is instituted here.
The history of the sectionis rs follows:
On the I'd of March, 1867, Congress passed
an act entitled "An act to amend exist
ing laws relating to internal revenue,
and for other purposes" This act
fixed the internal revenue to be
collected on great variety of articles
made provisions for income tax, declared
ItIlulIl Ill NlOlutiOll VI lllc IGNtllut
laws to be felonies, and certain other acts
to be misdemeanors, and among others of
like character enacted as follows:
SEC. 80. And be H6uther enacted, That If two or
more persons Couspire together, either to commit
my ofcn5c against the lawspf the United States or
to defraud the United States many manner what.
ever, and oneor more ofsad parties to said cOnspi-
racy shall do any act to effect the object thereof tho
aI,,N a
of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof
shall be liable to a penalty of not less thar
one thousand dollars and not more thar
ten thousand dollars, and to Imprisonment
not exceeding two years. Ahd tCheR any of
Jt1isG stat be LCgun IN one judicial district aud com
pitcd IN anoter, cte,y such QGenSe shaRbe deemed
haze been committed in ehcrQ said districts, and maj
bededH totth, inquired Of tried, dde,maed and pun
ishod in either Of said districts IN he same manner
VH had been actually and 1ohoLy committed Heretn
1t will be observed that the last sen
tenCe, which is italicized, with the excep
ton that the word and at the beginning
of it has been left of, constitutes section
ISL of the Revised Statutes, above quoted
In other words, in making the revision
of the statutes that sentence of section 81
ofthe act Of 1867 was placed in the re
vision as an independent section.
There are perhaps few lawyers VIII,
would contend that, as it stood in the ac
Of 1867, which dealt with offenses affect
ing internal revenue alone, it could b.
made to apply to a case Of murder and
it would not so apply, then the question
will arise whether-it having been mad
an independent section in the revision
its scope has been SO enlarged as to max,
it embrace that oiiense.
That will bring in review another sec
tion Of the Revised Statutes, which is n
follows:
SIC, 5000. The arrangement and classification
fthc several sections Of the revision have beef
made for the purpose of more convenient an,
orderly arrangement of the same, and, therefore
no inference or presumption ofa legislative con
struction is TO be drawn by reason Of the till
under which any particular section Is placed.
Does this leave the provisions of sec
tion 73l no broader in their legal opera
tion than when originally enacted as
part Of section 80 ofthe act Of 1867?
Possibly some of our numerous lega
friends may find the questions of sui
6cient interest TO furnish us the answers
This is not an opinion or intimatioi
That Guiteau cannot be tried in this Dis
triot. Section 73l may be ample to Civ
Jurisdiction, There may be other statute
that have not been referred to. We ar
only inquiring whether section 73l cal
be safely relied upon.
-S--.--
IT is noticeable that many Of our con
temporaries are already showering advic,
upon President Arthur. Aren't the!
hurrying things little? Wouldn't it b
inst ns we'll tn whit I'LL he GETS into Ih