The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-10-08
GUITEAU'S CASE.

i
|
] GUITEAU'S CASE.
| The trial of Guiteau seems now to be eX'
ercising to no little degree the informed and
legal minds of the country. Where ought
he to be tried ? is the question. The presi-
dent was wounded in the District of Column
| bia by the assassin and died eighty days Of
terward in New Jersey. Although the
president lived a few hours over eighty
days after he was shot, his physicians say
the autopsy revealed the fact that it was
| impossible for him to have recovered from
the wound; and their description of the
wound, the locality of the bullet, and the
facts as revealed by the autopsy show that
he must have been kept alive fully two
months by the medical skill of his attend
ants. In so far as the results of the shot are
concerned, in so far as the offense ofmurder
on the part of Guiteau is involved, it mat
tiers not whether he died instantly, in a few
hours, or in eighty days, if the wound
killed him, Guiteau is the murderer. But
the lawyers-that is, some of them-of the
country are interesting themselves about
the law of the case The, law is sacred
and holy thing in certain sense, especially
in government like ours. Its broad iegis
covers and protects all, knowing no differ
ence between men. Justice, blind goddess
as she is, with scales evenly balanced and
with her cleaning blade in hand, knows
neither color or station in life, or influence
or prestige, or antecedents when an Amer
can citizen is arraigned before her bar.
When this ceases to be the case, when a
hairs weight can swerve her bal
ances, then it is time to break her
sword, tear the seals from her
eyes, close the doors of her temples and pro-
claim from their turret-stonesi in terms more
full than ever characterized the. pronuncia-
mento of Mexican revolutionist, that
might makes right. 1t seems from the
enunciations of the law that we have seen,
that when an assault is made and death
wound given in one jurisdiction and the
victim dies in another jurisdiction, tho muir
derer cannot be convicted in either, the sim
gle exception in this country being the
state of Alabama which has special stat
ute covering the case. 1t seems, from the
discussions going on, that before Guiteau
can be tried and convicted either in the
District of Columbia, where the death wound
was given, or in New Jersey, where the
prcsidont died, number Of precedents must
be reversed and a,rule established, which has
never obtained either in this country or in
England. The District of Columbia has no
special statute, nor has New Jersey one for
the other horn of the dilemma, like Ala
bama, to try for murder, no matter where
the yictem died. This being the case-we
saw this being the case without asserting
that il is-Guiteau cannot, then, be tried
and convicted in the District Of Columbia
without decision independent Of statute
to the effect, that II matters not in what
jurisdiction his victim died, he is amenable
to the law there. How are We to get such
a decision? The courts administering the
law, and therefore the grandest bulwarks
of the liberties and the safety Of the people,
cannot in the face ofprecedents, in the face
of the reason and the mercy Of the law,
make such a decision simply to fit the case
in question. In the iurisprudenc
of this country, If there IS not
strict adherence TO precedent and the
established construction Of laws, then the
direst tyranny that ever cursed people
must set up its throne 10 oppress and out
rage every citizen. In the state Of Ala
hama. during last year, a man named
Green was arrested for the murder Of man
named Thompson, who died, after being
wounded, in Georgia. This was done, as
before stated, under . statute Of that state
covering such cases, which was sustained BY
the supreme court Of the state. There are
five cases on record. II seems, where men
have been tried in the jurisdiction where
the death wound was inflicted, the wounded
man diving in another jurisdiction, and the
result in these cases were, In decisions from
the supreme court of the United States,
from the supreme court Of the Districs 81
Columbia, and from the supreme
courts Of Virginia, o. Mississippi
and Of Vermont, that the prisoners
he discharged. How are these precedsnts
10 be surmOunted7 How are these decis-
ions 70 l.e reversed7 Seemingly. vel mag
Guiteuu. IN his cell, say that be has no fears
n he result Of q trial. Thai s1ch decisions
defeat the ordinary and common sense
concrr6ion q justice. We 81 know. buf fine
learned iudres ssy Il Il lau. horc can re -
thsrn nsiaes I've Other cases are cifed
rbsrs murdere-s were trisd in The jur.saic-