The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1881-10-20
THE ASSASSIN.
Argument Of the COunseI-ThG Question
of Jurisdiction,

WASHINGTON, October l0.-The following
isthe substance OF the argument which SEQ
vile, Guiteau's counsel, will file in the Dis
trict Criminal Court tomorrow in support
OF his motion for the order OF the court
directing that anallowance be made for the
expenses OF the prisoners witnesses:
May it please the court, the defendant in
the ease has applied for an order under the
revised statutes relating to the District of
Columbia, as follows "Section $50. In
all criminal trials the Supreme Court or
Judge trying the ease may allow such num-
bcr Of witnesses on behalf OF the defendant
as appear, the necessary fees thereof with
the costs Of service TO be paid in the same
manner as governmentwitnessesarc arc paid"
This statute was enacted February %,
1867, and there has been no repeal or
modification OF 1t unless it may be held
to have been absolutely repealed by the
general statute OF the United States herein.
after referred. Twenty.One years before
the passage Of the act above quoted an act
was passed entitled, an act to regulate the
proceedings in the Circuit and District
Courts Of the United States and for other
purposes; approved August S, 1916, section
| ! OF which was incorporated into the re.
yised statutes Of the United States as sec.
ton SIS, and reads us follows:
whenever any person Indicted in q
court Of the United States makes affidavit
setting forth that there are witnesses whose
evidence Is material to his defense; that he
cannot safely go to trial without them;
what he expects to prove by each Of them;
that they are in the district in which the
court Is held, or within one hundred miles
OF the place OF trial, and that he is not pos
seSsed OF sufficient means, and Is actually
unable to pay the fees OF such witnesses,
the court in term, or any Judge thereof
in vacation, may order that such
witnesses be subpEnpd II found with.
in the limits aforesaid In such cases
the costs incurred by processes and the fees
OF witnesses shall be paid in the same man.
ner that similar costs and fees are paid in
ease OF witnesses subpGnaed in behalf OF
the United States"
This law has been in full force Us u gen.
eral law OF the United States since II was
enacted. twas so in force ON the 22d day
Of February, 1867, when the law rs to the
practice in the Supreme Court Of the Dis.
trict OF Columbia above referred to was en-.
acted. The question that arises in his case
is; Was the law Of 81 repealed by the
law OF '76? BY virtue Of statute approv.
ed February 81, 1871, incorporated us sec.
tion '3 in the revised statutes relating to
ine District Of Columbia, Us follows: "Sec.
ton 93 OF the Constitution and all laws Of
the United States which are not locally in.
applicable, shall have the same force and
effect within the District az elsewhere
within the United States.'
Mr.. Scoville, after legal argument at
some length, concludes as follows: The ut.
tention Il your honor, hasythus been called
to the points OF law OIL application to the
defendant. He asks no forced cOnstriC.
ton OF any statute in his favor. His cOun.
sci believes in II proper construction, sav.
ing and giving full effect to all acts OF Con.
grcss, will enable your Honor to make
such order as he asks, to wit, that he may
have summoned like number of wit.
nesscs us are arrnyed against him OH behalf
OF the. prosecution. The Court is assured
that the order asked for will only be availcd
VI hO iilT us ulUy De necessary TO q
fair trial. Having failed to obtain
services counsel who Ind been asked to
undertake the defense, and the response
bility, devoting entirely upon myself at
least Of indicating what the defense will be.
| shall summon no witnesses except
on the question of insanity. The question
Of malpractice has only been held In obey.
anCe, so that the leading counsel who
might come in need not be hampered in
organizing the defense according to their
own views. II is now abandoned so far as
| have any connection with the case"
There seems to be some difference OF
opinion among the lawyers here as to
whether or not it will necessary for Guiteau
to be present in court during the argument
Of the question OF Jurisdiction. Justice
Cox said to reporter to-day that the argu.
ment upon the question OF jurisdiction Ia
az much Il part of Guiteau's trial as the ar.
gument upon any other point, and that
every step in the Case must be taken in
Guiteau's presence.
-%S$-.