Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-10-21
THE CASE OF GUITEAU.

THE CASE OF GUITEAU.
Decision Of the Criminal Court ON the
Subject Of SummOnfng and Paying
Witnesses for DefenCe-rhe Matter Of
Counsel Held Over
This morning there was quite large attendance
in the Criminal Court, Jtdge Cox, in anticipation
OF interesting proceedings in the case Of Gulteau
indicted for the murder OF President Garfield. Mr..
Scovlle was early in court Immediately after the
opening Of the court Judge Cox gave his decision
on the brief submitted by Mr.. Scoville day before
| yesterday on the motion for summoning and pay
ing witnesses for the defence from distance over
| one hundred miles He said the application was
made under section Ss9 Revised Statutes, which is
"In all criminal trials the Supreme Court or the
| judge trying the case may allow such number Of
pear necessary, the fees thereof or the costs Of
service, to be paid in the same manner as govern
| This court, as 1 learned from my brethren and
the older practitioners at the bar, has repeatedly
exercised the power which is now invoked, and
which seems clearly to be conveyed by the general
and comprehensive terms of the statute
The doubt which have felt on this subject grew
Of Page VS.. Burnstetn, 12th Otto. After quoting
the provisions of the acts Of 1864, 1865 and
1sn' he odsa said "The nso Supreme Court held
the District The The doubt which this Hs 's case s sug
ef 1871 did not put in force In this District AN an act
Of 1885, applying to Us Courts outside Of the
District providing that whenever any person in
dicted in court of the United States makes an
affidavit setting forth that there are witnesses
who material to his defense land that he cannot
safely go to trial without them and what he ex-
poets to prove by each of them; that they are
within the district in which the court is held, or
within 100 miles of the place Of trial.
and the fees Of witnesses shall be paid in the same
manner that similar costs and fees are paid in
United States;" and whether this law, which con-
nrmed the power in question only as to witnesses
within hundred miles of the place Of trial, did
not, by implication, repeal the larger power con-
ferred on the courts OF this District think, how
ever, that can perceive differences between the
question determined err in the case cited and the
present 0ne The restriction upon the parties priv
made part Of tie law Of this District, being in
before prevailed, necessarily operated repeal pro
tanto OF the existing law On the other hand there
Is S no necessary Inconsistency between the act OF
passed for the District of Columbia, in reference
to the defendants witnesses. The act of 1916 is
other TWO acts conferring at different times dif
!erent degrees OF authority, although the more
limited are later In time, are not necessarily con-
nlctlng They are not SO in terms Ii they are, 1t
must be because of implications from the narrower
act that the larger one was designed to be modi-
therefore, 1t is a proper one and in particular
case must @ depend upon the circumstances: The
act or 1916 mad been enacted anew Singly and Spe-
Of the District already possessed larger power it
would be a natural suggestion that such an act
WoGid De unnecessary, unless it was intended by
implication to curtail the powers already con-
ferred. But when it is borne in mind that the
actor, act OF 1871 was sweeping clause, embracing all
pose that any special attention was given to this
particular subJect0 there Is not the same reason
lor holding that the one actwas intended to repeal
tne other as that the existing powers OF this court
were to be curtailed. And there is reason why the
two acts may consist together and operate concur
feinfty, W.: that they provide different relief for
I'm: In the case Of witnesses within hundred
miles, the court Is not in terms, clothed
witnesses for the defense who are to be
paid: The court on the showing made, may
maps, be held obligatory, and If not the court may
simply order or refuse; but by the general power
c9ntered CO 1Ss1 without limit as to distance by the act
to be allowed for the defense to be paid by the
United States: do not think, therefore, that the
In force here. But it may be doubted whether the
acC OF 1916 IS TO be considered as locally applicable
here The term ''district' within which the wit
neSSeS must be, means undoubtedly the judicial
district OF the federal system, whereas the Dis
trict OF Columbia is not judicial district of that
system. 1t is unnecessary, however, to discuss the
will consider at chambers what and how many
ne ought % to be allowed for the defense at
In the matter of the assignment of counsel,
desire to confer with present counsel before max
Ing any announcement
What MIR. ScOville Says.
HIS TROUBLES IN GETTING EXPERT wITNEssEs-THR
POLITICS OF THE CAsE-sOME INTERESTING LETTERS.
After the proceedings in the Criminal Court
room this morning, Mr.. Scoville Guiteau's counsel
remained about the City Hall some time, and con-
suited with one or two members of the bar
STAR reporter accompanied him from the City Hall
to his lodgings.
said Mr. Scoville 'It is only fair that the assign
ment should be made as early as possible, Tor
sRna
Wlshes VIII De consulted as to the members OF the
bar assigned aed to to the The, case?" @
ing against me- Not being acquainted here, 1 have
had to depend on the advice OF friends in making
Upon arriving at his lodgings, Mr. Scoville sat
down down at on once to 60 to work upon his corespon
of which he had not time to open. ssIn the matter
of these expert witnesses" he stated to thereporter
% have been g In the DARK and have had to make
enaose tssSs and % ss1,,e may fSen ns Rsnaea
Macdonald, MD, medical superintendent
New YORK City Asylum for The Insane, Wards Isl:
and, under date OF October 18th: "My Dear S1r:-I
was surprised to find my name given in your affi-
davit in the Guiteaucase thatof of the expert
sanity Of ana for dea
whose expenses you made application. ASH have
had no communication with you directly or indi-
rectly, am at loss to understand this use of my
name, 1 ana snan be much obliged If you viii do me
the favor OF informing me what led to it. 1 trust
also, that you will see the proprtety Of correcting
In some way the mistaken inference that would
naturally ma, be drawn from the connection in which
my name appeared-that had been consulted
upon the subject and had given an opinion favor
Ing the theory OF insanity
very respectfully, &C."
The reply Of Mr.. ScOvilIe to the above written
to-day, was as follows:
DEAR SIR:-UpOn thinking over the substance of
your letter OF the 18th inst have concluded that
pernaps, iarther explanations are due to you than
Mfle tS'a onn IN my Of
edge OF single person in the east whom 1 MIGHT
can as an expert on insanity was driven to take
pOsuon ana Indicate defense, giving names of
witnesses VI, ne Firmly believing myself in the insan
ny ny Oh Ine prisoner determined, If necessary. to
act upon the presumption that any competent eIpe1t
v upon Iu would sustain
70 me without exception, desiring that full and
Iat taai should be had upon this question: have
expera me sc several letters suggesting names Of
"A Friend" dated September 80, suggesting the
names a OF yourself and DR.. Fitch, with the assur
duCc tnaC "tleV would NM hurt