Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-12-09
THE PRESIDENT AND TIE eUITEaU
TRIAL


The defense in the Guiteau trial is
making persistent effort to create the i'm
preston that the prisoner was led to CON-
NIT the crime for which he is being tried,
BY the attitude of the stalwarts toward
President Garfield. How such an en-.
deavor eau be made to consist with the in.
SEPARATION theory or the insanity plea, re-
mains to be seen. Probably Scoyille
thinks it possible to show that his client,
being of unsound mind, was excited and
worked up by the violent assaults upon
General Garfield. As Guiteau has line of
defense which is quite distinct from that
of his counsel, it is not always possible to
follow the dual plans, but it is significant
that Scoville has demanded that President
Arthur should be placed on the witness
stand, and has several times asserted that
the testimony of the President is abso-
lutely necessary to the defense. Guiteau
himself displays comparative Indifference
on this point, but he has openly stated
that he made Arthur President, and this
statement, taken in connection with SEQ
ville's demand for President Arthur,
renders the action of Judge Cox in re-
fusing to issue subpoena for the
President, liable to misconstruction. We
can indeed conceive of no reason why
President Arthur should object to being
examined in this case, while there are
some serious reasons why he ought to be
examined. 1t has been asserted by Gui-
teau that Arthur, Conkling, and the
stalwart" leaders generally, were on
terms of intimacy with him. It may be
that no intelligent person believes this /;
but it must be borne in mind that intelli-
gent persons do not constitute a majority
in any country. There are always num-
bers who are just intelligent enough to
draw wrong inferences, and in this case
there happens to be an unusually good op-
portunity for that kind of deduction. If
the President is examined the whole truth
will be made public, and we have no doubt
that Guiteau's assertions will be disproved.
But if the President is not examined it will
be possible for stupid or malicious people to
form the belief that there were some
sinister motives for not putting him on the
witness stand and we are sure President
Arthur would suffer more under such
groundless suspicious than he could pos
sibly do if called upon to testify. The at
tempt of the defense to connect the " stall.
"warts in an indirect way with Guiteaus
crime, ought in our Judgment to be met
in the one effective way, namely by
bringing the men he has named
face to face with him. For the
ISLANDERS which ruin the regulations
OF public men often have no more substan-
tial foundation than this, and it is only
through the lapse of time that they acquire
a seeming consistency. 1t ought not. there.
fore, to be made possible for anyone to say,
years hence perhaps, that Guiteau charged
President Arthur with being an intimate
of his, and that the Judge presiding at the
trial refused to let the President appear
The most probable state of the case is that
Arthur never saw Guiteau, and has no
knowledge of him whatever; but the actual
facts ought to be brought out, no matter
what their insignifcance, because when the
truth is not known mischievous errors are
always liable to usurp its place. It seems
to US that President Arthur, if he is wise,
will insist on being placed upon the witness
stand after what has been said on the
part of the defense, and that he will CON-
NIT serious mistake if he does not take
this course