Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-10-17
eurrsAUs LINE OF DEFENSE.


twofold. It will be claimed that he is IN.
sane, and it will be further alleged that
President Garfield did not die OF his wound,
but that his death was caused by NAL
practice on the part of his physicians. As
regards the plea of insanity, it may be re-
marked that under modern rulings the
very commission of crime is sufficient
basis for it. Guiteau has no doubt been
peculiar in his ways. rs has often acted
in such manner as to deserve the charac-
terizaiion OF eccentric. And though he is
probably no more mad than thousands of
people who go through life without re-
straint, it may be possible to bring wit
nesses who will testify that they always
looked upon him as more or less crazy. 1t
is indeed probable that though the plea of
insanity be secuted with indignation by
the country generally, it may give the
prosecution a great deal of trouble.
Whether a jury of American citizens can
be got together that will pay any attention
to such line of defense, is, however, the
really important consideration, and on this
point the public at least appear to enter
tain very little apprehension. Yet juries
are proverbially unreliable, and if in this
case the usual challenges are permitted,
and a panel of fools is consequently OBJ
tanned, it would be useless to speculate on
the outcome. It would seem impossible to
find dozen men who. had not informed
themselves thoroughly concerning the case,
and who had not formed definite and final
opinions, and because of the unanimity
of public sentiment Guiteau's counsel will
try hard to get the stupidest possible
jurors.
As to the second plea, namely, that the
Presidents wound was not necessarily
mortal, we think it will be much easier to
meet it. 1t is very much to be. regretted
that the final reports of the surgeons upon
the results of the autopsy were not more
generally made known, for the medical
history of the case completely sets at rest
the doubts which an imperfect statement
of the facts had suggested. The autopsy
demonstrated that the ball, after passing
through the body of the first lumbar ver-
zebra, cut the splenic artery, and then
passed on to the position behind the pan
creas where it speedily became encysted.
The splenic artery having been thus rup-
tured, Nature instantly set about to repair
the injury, and drew an aneurisnlal sac
over the cut. This sac, which, to use un-
scientific language, was an enlargement of
the artery at the point of the injury, caused
protrusion which passed across, and COM
pletely filled up, the track of the ball. It
was owing to the presence and pressure of
this sac upon the track of the ball that the
latter became so rapidly encysted. But
the aneurismal sac itself remained a source
of the deadliest danger throughout the
case, and finally, by giving way, caused
the death of the President. It is thus
apparent that the wound was necessarily
mortal, for surgical Escience was incompe-
tent to deal with the aneurismal sac even.
had its existence and position been known
from the first, and what is more it is also
evident that if the surgeons had diagnosed
the case rightly instead of wrongly, the
President would have died seventy days or
more before he did.
The proof of this assertion is not diff
cult. For had the surgeons discovered the
actual course of the ball the presumption is
that they would have attempted to explore
it. In that event one of two fatal results
must have ensued. Either they would
have ruptured the spinal cord while crop
ing for the passage through the vertebrA
or, surprising that they passed that danger
safely, they must have. pierced the aneu-
rismal sac which lay right across the track
of the ball. In either case death would
have followed almost instantaneously, as
we have seen death did follow the rupture
of the aneurismal sac at the last. It is
therefore conclusively demonstrated that
the prolongation of the Presidents life was
actually due to the inaccuracy of the
diagnosis. But supposing that the sur
geons had been right in their diagnosis,
and yet had been afraid to explore the
wound, as they very well might have been,
seeing how closely it approached the spinal
cord. In that case they would have paid
no attention to the pus sinus, which, as it
was, they mistook for the track Of the ball
But had that sinus been neglected, there
can be no doubt that the pus which
drained into it from the seat of the wound
would have accumulated until it broke
through into the abdominal cavity, and
death would have ensued swiftly.
There is thus no aspect of the case which
makes for Guiteau, and If Dr. Hammond
proposes attacking the surgeons who had
charge of the case, he will only succeed in
SCATTERING his own reputation. After read
ing the history of the case, we are con-
WINGED that nothing could have saved the
Presidents life, and that however strange
it may appear to those who have not
studied the subject carefully, the mistake
in the diagnosis played no part in the sub
sequent events, or if any, a benedcent part.
The wound was of such a character as to
battle surgery. There is no way by which
a wounded artery situated deep in the
body can be got at and repaired, and it
was the wounded splenic artery which
ultimately caused the death of the Presi-
dent. As that artery was cut by Guiteau's
bullet, the plea of malpractice has no
foundation. The chain of causation is
direct and unbroken, from the pulling of
the trigger by the assassin to the death of
the victim, and professional jealousy and
legal subtlety VIII alike fail in every at
tempt to sever the connection. On the
whole, therefore, it may be concluded that
the plea of insanity is the only one which
threatens to give any serious trouble. After
the experience of the past twenty years
with that plea, it would be folly to
forecast the action of any jury to whom
it is presented, but it may be said with
LII L