The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1881-09-28
Guilty Guiteau.

For some time the public hav been dis
cusslng the fact, as to whether Guiteau is
guilty of murder, inasmuch as 1t had been
charged that the President had suffered from
unskillful medical and surgical treatment.
On this subject q correspondent of the Ne10
York Herald, says:
He is guilty Of murder for the following
reasons:
The tribunal in which Guitcau Ia to be tried
is governed by the old common law, under
| which killing Is defined as murder, man.
! slaughter, Justif1able homicide.
There arc no degrees OF these different
crimes.
For murder the penalty is hanging.
1t makes no difference whether the Presi.
medical or surgical treatment ex haustion, the
crime Is the same. the wound being the the
"Incdiatc" cause IF death,
The facts Of the shooting as they occurred
on the morning OF the 2dday OF July, ISL, are
as OllowS:
The President on that cvcntful morning in
pelcct heath went to the station OF the Balti.
i more and Potomac Railroad, and in the wait
ticket was shot by Gulteau, who had been
waiting about the depot with the sole pur.
pose of doing that act.
Since the shooting the President has been
attended By several physicians, whose treat
ment has been criticised by some Of the med
ical public rs improper, and this has led many
to believe that II the treatment of thea attend
ing surgeons was improper Guitcau might es-
cape hanging. This Is erroneous.
In Rex VS.. Rev, J. kel. rs: Edward Rev
was indicted for killing Nathaniel Rev
his brother, and upon the evidence 1t was re
10 ved that, If one gives wound TO another
who ncglccts the cure OF them. or Is disorder
ly and doth not keep that rule which Il person
wounded should do, yet II he die 1t Is murder
or manslaughter, according as the case: = =
because, II The wounds had not been the mar
had not died; and, therefore, neglect or dis
order In the person who received the wounds
shall not excuse the person who gave them
thority ON criminal law In this country, II
section 6SO, where he says: And the doc
itrine Is established. that, II the blow caused
the death. 1t Is sufficient, though the indirid
. ual might have recovered had he used propel
care or himself; orsubmitted to n surgical op
Grafton, to which he refused submission o.
had the surgeon treated the wound properly.
Hawk: re Gurw: Ed, p: 83, sec: 10.
Keg. VS.. Holland, 2 Moody & f., &l.
Reg. VS.. West, 2 Car. & K, 1871.
The State vs.. Baker, Jones y: G., 9G.
Reg. VS.. 1iRincs, 2 Car. d L., 36S.
,sSuppose the wound Ia not the immediate
cause of death, md that exhaustion or som
other disease be The Immediate cause, never
thclcss Gulteau IS legally guilty Of murder:
"if tile person dies by the action OF tn
wound, and by the medical or surgical action
Jointly, the wound must clearly be regarded
Sufficiently o cause Of the death. And tn,
wound need not even be q concurrent cause
for, II 1t is the cause Of the cuuse, no more !
required"
Parsons vs.. The State, 81 Ala, 3M.-In thi
that, ore Ordinarily, If a Wound is inflicted no
dangerous In Itself, and the death was occa
stoned by the grossly erroneous treatment
the original author will be accountable. AM
we agree also that If the wound Wns mortal 0
! Hu nVprO1s. the narS0n who inflicted H. ClnnO
shelter himself under the plea Of erroneou
treatment" But the former OF these tw'
propositions Is a little more favorable to thu
prisoner than All exact consideration OF lcga
principle would seem to indicate.
Lord Hale says:
'If a nun receives q wound which is not II
itself mortal, but either for want of helpful
applications or [from] neglect thereof IL turn
10 n gangrene or Il fever, and that gangren
or fever be the immediate cause Of his death
yet this Is murder or manslauyhter In hin
that gave the stroke or wound; for tina
wound, though 1t were not the immediate
cause Of his death, yet II 1t were the incdint
cause thereof and the lever or gnnsrene wa
tho immediate cause of his death, yet til
wound was the cause of the gnngrene or fever
and SO consequently is causa causatf.' -,
Il Hale p. G., 1873. And sec Commonwealth
vs. Mcpike, 3Cush.. ISL; Rel. V. Mlnnock,
Crnwf. & Dix G. c.: ~
that where the wound Is fcloniously inflicted
and the unsklllfulne Of the surgeon contrib
uies to the death which follows. the person In
tlicting the wound Is nevertheless guilty. O
murder or manslaughter, as the casc may be
And Bigelow, Chief Justice, after reviewing
the authorities, which he considered to be on
way, said; 1.-The well established rule Of th'
OnlnOn law would seem to be that II tn
wound was a dangerous wound-that is, calcu
lated to c%ndnnger or destroy litc-and dealt
cnsued there from, 1t Is sufficient proof OF I'll,
offence of murder or lnanslaushter, and thu
the person who inflicted IT is responsible
though 1t may appear that the deceased NIGH
have recovered If he had taken proper care q
himself, or submitted to a surgical operation
or that unskillful or improper treatment ac
gravdted the wound and contributed to til
death, or that death was Immediately cause'
by q surgical operation rendered necessary b!
tic condition OF the wound" Common
wealth VS.. IIacke tt, : Allen, 23B, l4I.)
Tho intent with generalization Is establish
cd beyond question, and the act Is clrarl,
murder Within all rules Of common law
Yours, respectfully,
WILLIAM F. Howe.
81 Centre St., New York CITY.