New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-12-06
THE ASSASSIN'S TRIAL.
RESTRICTED TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS.


REAL OPINIONS AS TO THE SANITY OF THE
PRIso>ER-GUITEAU WANTS GRANT, CoNKLING
AND OTHERS cALLED-A RECOMMENDATION TO
PRESIDENT ARTHUR
Several experts were called to the stand in
the Guteau trial yesterday, butin most cases they
were only asked to answer a hypothetical ques-
ton based upon the testimony for the defence.
Assuming the propositions in the question to
be true, all the experts except one said the
person described was insane No attempt was
made by the defence to bring out the real
opinions of the doctors, and most of them will
probably be called for the prosecution and
questioned as to the result of their personal
examinations of the prisoner. The prisoner
expressed a strong desire to have General
Grant, ex-Scnators Conzling and Platt and ex-
Governor Jewell called to testify as to their
feelings last spring toward President Garfield.
He also suggested that President Arthur would
do well to appoint Emory A. stors as Attor-
ney- General. During one of his speeches he
declared that he "wOuld rather be hung as
sensible man than acquitted as a fool" Tho
President has declined to appear as a witness
THE EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS BEGUN.
IBY TELEGRAPH To THE TRTBUygl
WASHINGTON. Dec 5.-The battle of the experts
has begun. The testimony both as to Gniteau's act
and the circumstances going to prove his response
bity or responsibility is all in, and that point has
been reached in case which both sides must feel
to he crtical-the point where the opinions of men
whose lives have been spent in the study of mental
diseases upon the sanity Of the assassin to be
weighed by jury of plain citizens having special
knowledge Of the subject. The apparent adyan-
tagc Of the testimony to-day was with he defence,
but it only an apparent and not real adyan-
tage, and the question of how far the defence viii
be sustained even by those of ITS witnesses who
were called to-day is in fact yet to be tested.
The first expert put upon the stand was chosen
first because he wanted to leave the city. He was
a young Chicago doctor little under thirty years
of age James Herman by name. He was plainly
nervous at appearing an expert before the group
of distinguished aenists, including the first in the
country who sat before him grayely listening to his
testimony. and perhaps did not do himself justice.
But the impression he lett was not favorable. Mr..
Scoville read TO him long hypothetical question.
based upon GUiteau's case The witness was asked
whether, assuming to be true all the propositions
set forth by the defence-from the claim of here.
ditary insanity to that OF the honest" belief OF
the assassin in his inspIratIon-he world consider
him insane. The witness responded, as probably
every person called upon 10 answer sueh question
w0uld probably be obliged to do, that he should
COnsluer MN insane. III. hleElduS tcSlHIiohy
indicated little beyond a willingness to declare
Guiteau Irrespons ble and did not raise the pre-
sumption that the opinion was entitled to great
weight. The prosecution upon cross-examlnation
brouS out the facts that while DR.. kiernan had
been connected with the Wards Island Asylum in
New-York he was dismissed for cause and had only
| been connected with the Chicago Medical College
! and newspaper with which he is associated for
| few months
| DR.. Macdonald then and now at the head Of the
| Wards Island Asylum, sat among the experts
| while Dr. kiernan swore that he was dismissed
because he would not sign a false death certificate,
and he will probably be called upon TO testify upon
the subject. When the prosecution elected the fact
that Dr. Herman had not committed more than live
or ten insane persons during his practice, and by
skful questioning led him into uhdiscrlmlnatlng
and exagg rated statements respecting the preya-
lence of insanity among every class of people, the
feeling that his testimony had been destroyed be-
came general
The othcr experts called for the defence were DR..
Charles H. Nichols, superintendent of the Blooming
dale Asylum; DIR. Charles L. Folsom, of the
Harvard Medical College DR.. Samuel Worcester,
of Salem. Mass; DR.. GOddIng, of the Government
Hospital for the Insane; DR.. James IL. Mcbride, OF
the Insane ASYLUM near Milwaukee; Dr. Walter
Claiming, of Brookline, Mass, and DR.. Theo W.
Fisher of Boston. To each of these witnesses IN
turn Mr. Scoville read his long hypothetical ques
ton and most OF them answered that they should
consider the prisoner unquestonably insane taxing
care however, to base the opinion upon the proyso
that the statements made in the question were
correct. One or two, however, refused to do this
Dr. Worcester demanded to know the sense in
which the word inspiration" was used and wai
allowed to 90 without answering the question, as
Mr. Scoville did not willing to give any def
Ns,v, 20 IMtIfna
who was explaining over and over again that II
means the "mterjection' by the Deity of an idea
into his mind. Guiteau illustrated his legal quick
ness right here. The prosecution showed DISPOSE
ton to cross-eXamne DIR. Worcester, though he
had really given no evidence. Mr. Scovllle OBJ
iected and GuIteau spoke mp sharply: We've got
n right to withdraw our own witness, of course"
which was doing pretty well for an insane man.
Dr. Fisher who said that he had made speciality
of insanity for two years. showed much reluctance
to be confined to the hypothetical question: but in-
timated that if he was obliged to answer he should
say that such person was insane. The
cross-examination by the prosecution was
in every case very brief. The witness
was usually asked whether he had ex-
amined the prisoner and, on replying that
he had done So was tolG that he would probably
be called ~ witness for the prosecution. Mr. SEQ
Vile made no attempt in any case, by redirect ex-
animation, to discover the views the experts had
formed at these personal examinations
distinguished Government expert, in speaking
afterward of the testimony said it had amounted To
nothing. The experts had simply been asked
whether if a man was insane they would pronounce
him insane, aud those who chose TO answer the
question said Yes" of course. For his own part,
he should have declined TO answer any such ques-
ton. and he called attention to the fact that tue
defence had not tried to elicit the conclusions de-
rived from personal examinations of Guiteau
1t is seen therefore, that nothing in the testimony
given by the experts to-day touched upon the CUES
tion of responsibility
Guiteau had apparently recovered his