Daily globe., 1881-10-22
GUITEAU'S CHANCES.
His Lawyer Trying to Prove His Insanity
Difficulty of Securing TestimOny-The
Question of Jurisdiction.

His Lawyer Trying to Prove His insanity
Difficulty of Securing Testimony-The
Question of Jurisdiction.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2l.--Dr. Mcdonald,
medical superintendent of the New York
city asylum for insane, having written
Scoville, counsel for Gniteau, says, was
surprised to find my name given in an af-
fidavlt in Guiteau's case as that ct one
expert witness by whom you expect to
prove the insanity of your client, and for
money to defray my expenses you made
application.
Scoville, in the course of his reply said:
81 came into the case only few days
ago without knowledge of a single per-
son in the east whom l might call as ex-
pert on insanity in the family. Believ-
ing, myself, in the insanity of the priso-
ner, determined, if necessary, to act
upon the presumption that any compc-
tent expert in such cases upon full inves-
tigation would sustain my position.
Unknown persons, entire strangers to
me, desiring that full and fair trial
should be had upon this question, have
written me several letters, suggesting the
names of several experts. Such letter
was received by me, signed ga Friend" :"
dated September 30, suggesting the
names of yourself and DR.. Fitch, with as
surance 'they would not hurt my case"
Your letter states have asked for money
to pay such expenses. 1t is true have
made application to one Individual whose
high position and reported wealth led me
to hope he would aid me. No answer
has yet been received to that letter nor
have received dollar from any source
Il had means to pay you or any expert
would ask the attendance in Washing
ton before the trial, and careful investi-
cation of the case. Due preparation for
trial, on my part, can only be made in
that manner, but | have not money to
pay for such services. The only
course open to me is to
summon such experts as l can
hear of at a venture and under the law
require their attendance in the trial un-
til all the facts are developed, and then
depend on their conscientious regard for
truth and justice to relate their convic-
tions uninf1uenced by popular clamor.
GUITEAU's WITNESSES AND LAWYERS.
In the supreme court, Judge Cox rendered
decision, upon the application of Scoville,
counsel for Guiteau, for an order of court al
lowing fees and expenses to defendants wit
nesses. The judge held 1t was clearly in the
discretion of the court to allow expenses for
reasonable number of witnesses, the same to
be paid in the same manner as government
witnesses, and stated that he would decide in
chambers as to the number of witnesses to be
allowed. Upon question of assignment of
counsel to assist the defense, the judge stated
fh hot hn UOr11A 6afar ho ,otf 1,rfiI loft
sulting with Scoville.
POLITICS IN GUITEAU's CASE.
Scoville, Guiteau's counsel, is causing some
avowed intention to make the most of the
reported as saying yesterday: "There is more
of politics in the case than most people imag-
inc. Intend that everything connected with
the crime shall be developed, and if l should
have stalwart to help me he might antagon-
ize the cause. If it is neces-
sary shall not hesitate
to bring out the connection of Ccnkling with
the inception of the crime. The stalwart
schsm was responsible for the matter and
cure the result" The opinion is very general
here that Judge Cox will decide that he has no
jurisdiction. Richard 7. Merrick, who will
argue this point for Scoville, is quite sure that
there is no Jurisdiction and says that the cir
cult court of the district has decided in
that way In two similar cases.
Mr.. Merrick also remarked that
he could not see how Judge Cox, as it has
been stated he intended to do, could have the
question of Jurisdiction disposed of before the
trial of the case commenced. "for," said he,
"The prisoner has pleaded not guilty as he
had perfect right to do and l cannot see
how the judge can require him to change the
issue thus made. 1t was mistake to arrange
the prisoner if the judge was in doubt as to
his jurisdction.'
GTITEAU's WITNESSES.
In the criminal court to-day Justice Cox, in
granting the motion of Scoville, Guiteau's
counsel, for an allowance to defray expenses
for bringing defendants witnesses here, said
"This court, as learn from my brethren
and old practitioners at the bar, has repeated
ly exercised the power now invoked, and
which seems clearly to be conveyed by the
general and comprehensive terms of the stat
ute. The only doubt which l have
felt on this subject grew out of the
ruling of the United States supreme court.
In the case of Page VS.. Burnskin, 18th Otto.,
Justice Cox then reviewed the case of Page vs..
Burnskin in detail, and after comparing it
with the present case, said in conclusion they
differed one from another in the points de-
cided, and he was therefore of the opinion that
the ruling of the supreme court in form was
not decisive of the question involved in the
latter. He would grant the petitioners mo-
ton for allowance, leaving the number of wit
nesses to be fixed hereafter.