Morning journal and courier., 1881-09-28

to walk (using crutch) nearly three mile l each way daily between her house and tn
 printing room. and to climb four flights 0 stairs to her labors. This so exhausted tn
 poor child that she was fast losing her health | These two southern ladies looked about then to see who, among the influential men il Washington, had the broadest human symps thy, and decided that General James A. Gar ] field, then M. O., was the man most likely t help them in benefting this afflicted family They accordingly visited General Garfield house. and found a carriage before his door Though complete strangers to him, they sen their cards to the General who immediatel, came down stairs. He had his overcoa 1 thrown over his arm but very courteousl, greeted the ladies and asked what he coult do for them. They said, ''We notice yo, appear to be about leaving, and perhaps VI
 detain you"; he replied, 1T am about tt
 take the cars, but will delay till next trail if I can in any way be of service tt
 you'' and he showed them into
 the parlor and introduced them te
 his wife. When he was tole
 the case he replied that he should be away
 from Washington for two or three days, but
 if they would remind him on his return he
 would do all he could to assist them. Mrs
 Garfield engaged to remind the General or
 his return, which she did, and through his kindness and efforts this lame girl was trans. ferred from the fourth floor to the first, and her salary made $1, 200 instead of $4OO.
 The case of Guiteau will be given to the grand jury early next week, and an indict ment will probably follow. The question as to the legality of trial in the District ot Columbia, now that death has occurred in another jurisdiction, is about set at rest by a long paper in which Mir. Robinson, the assis- tant solicitor of the Treasury department, cites all the laws and decisions bearing on the case. The following extract sets forth the most important reasoning in regard to the point at issue:
 By the thirtieth section of the act of March ?, 1867, Congress has provided that when any offence shall be begun in one judicial district and completed in another every such offense shall be deemed to have been committed in either, and may be dealt with, tried, determined and punished ip either, in the same manner as if it had been actually and wholly committed therein There is no doubt but that the District ot Columbia and New Jersey constitute judicial districts, ascertained by law, as provided in the Constitution of the United States. The present case was therefore, clearly provided for under this act. But the law was not codifed in section 731 of the Revised Statutes as 1t originally passed. The codifers, for some reason which does not appear, changed somewhat the phraseology of the act referred to. They have the words judicial circuit" instead of judicial district, :" so that the section as codified reads: ''When any otfense is be- gun in one judicial circuit and completed iD another, it shall be deemed to have been committed in either, be tried, determined and punished in either district.'' This change throws doubt upon the point whether the supreme court of this District under this section would have Jurisdiction of the offence in question, because the District of Columbia may not be held to be a judicial district. But this doubt may be somewhat lessened when it is observed that section 731 of the Revised Statutes provides that such offence may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined and punished in either district;' to make the section consistent, it would seem that the words circuit and district should be con strued as meaning the same thing. Shoulo there be doubt as to the correct interpreta tions, the court would refer it to the original act.