Democratic messenger. [volume] (Snow Hill, Md.) 1869-1973, 1881-12-03
THE TRIAL OF GUITHAU.
Incidents of the Case and Testimony
Given.


the West Fl. N. Burton, Congrega-
tionalist clergyman of Illinois, formerly
a aresident of Kalamazoo, Mich, in cross.
examination, said: I cannot say that
my opinion then was that he was so far
insane as not to be responsible per-
son; I thought him not so much
deranged as very badly arranged.
Naughter.)
John A. Rice, a practising physician
of Merton, Wis, first saw the prisoner
in the summer of 1875 at Mr.. Scoville's
house. Mr.. Scoville called his attention
to him for the purpose of inquiring
into his mental condition. He observed
the prisoner for that purpose. He came
to the conclusion that he was insane,
baslng his opinion on certain facts which
came under his observation. Among
these facts were that of hereditary in
fiuence and the exaltation of his whole
emotional nature.
Mary s. Lockwood, residing in Wash
ington, testified that the prisoner had
boarded at her house for month, be-
ginning about March II, 1881. The
only reason she knew of for his leaving
was that he did not pay his board. She
said that Guiteau was eccentric.
In the trial Friday was spent in get
ting from the friends and neighbors of
the Guiteau family facts to sustain the
plea of insanity. Most of the time was
consumed in taking evidence to show
that Luther Guiteau, the prisoners
father, was of unsound mind. 1t was
clearly proven that he accepted in full
and zealously the peculiar theological
and social views held by the Oneida
Community, fact which Mr.. Scoville
seemed to regard as evidence of his in
sanity. The prosecution, ON the other
hand, treated such vagaries as lndicat-
ing eccentricity in religious belief which
did not impair the legal response
bility of those who indulged in them.
1t was brought out, on the testi-
mony of friends of the family, that
Luther Guiteau believed in vital
union with Christ whereby death was
averted, that he could heal the sick by
an act of faith, and the like. He was
sincere in these delusions, and at times
showed a dangerous spirit of fanaticism
in acting upon his belief in them. even
going so far as to counsel the sacrifice
of one opponent and the death of an
other. Charles, it was said by those
who knew both father and son, was an
exaggerated copy of Luther in both
mind and body. The three principal
witnesses of the day were ex-
District-Attorney Reed of the Chi
cago bar and two Freeport lawyers,
who knew the prisoners family. Mr..
Reed bore out in the main the
statements in Mr.. Scoville's opening
speech relative to the legal inability of
Guiteau. From his singular behavior
in court, joined to personal observation
in other circumstances, Mr.. Reed had
concluded that he was insane. His pre-
tensions to the Paris Consulate, Mr..
Reed thought, evipced mental weakness.
He did not think him incapable of fill
ing subordinate places in the depart
ments.
During the day the prisoner inter-
rupted the proceedings to such degree
that the court threatened Ito gag him
if he did not keep quiet.
Senator John A. Logan, OF Illinois,
was sworn. As he was sworn the pris-
oner greeted him with Chow are you,
Senator. I am glad to see you" but his
greeting met with no response.
The witness detailed two interviews
which he had with the prisoner. The
first was about the 18th or the 18th of
March last, in the morning. The pris-
oner came to his room, uninvited. The
first thing that the prisoner did was to
pull pamphlet out of his pocket and
hand it to the witness, saying that it was
a speech which he had delivered in the
recent canvass and asking witness to read
it. Witness declined to read it at the
time, but said that he would take pleas
ure in reading it afterward. 1t was
speech entitled Garfield against Han
cock" The prisoner then said: "That
speech elected Mr.. Garfield President of
the United States" He then commenced
talking about position that he desired,
saving that he had the promise of an ap
pointment as Consul General to France.
He said he had seen the Secretary OF
State, who had promised him this ap
pointment provided he could get Senator
Lopan's recommendation. Witness said:
"I do not know you and cannot recon-
mend you.
"He did not strike me as person
whom would recommend for an Office
of that character or any other Office. I
treated him as kindly and politely as I
could, but was very deslrous of getting
rid of him; did not want to be annoyed
with him. He was rather peculiarly
clad for the season, there being snow on
the street at the time. He had on his
feet pair of sandals, or rubbers or
something of that kind, He had no
stockings. He wore light pair of panta-
looms and a common, ordinary coat. A
day or two afterward he came again
to my room unlimited. He still insisted
on my signing his recommendation,
reiterating the same statement as before,
of his having promise Of the place if l
would recommend him. I again de-
clined. I had in the meantime, out of
curiosity, read the speech. He YVES q
little more excited at the second inter-
view than at the first. The second was
a very short interview, for I tried to
dispose of the matter as quickly as
possible. said to him: The first time
[ see the Secretary of State I will men
ton your case to him. l did not say
that I would recommend him, but
simply that would mention his case;
and I intended to do so, but probably
in a different way from what he sup
-.n1 xro,,I5 kbouoht thorQ was