Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-10-19

GUITEAU's, CASE.
Mr. scoville to Ask thesCourt TO Assign
COEnsel-His ATgUnSent i'm Reference
SenceHs:en. HasIer,s SseeResens fo FOR fxoi No,
Taking Part i'm the Defence, &c.
Mr.. scovllle, counsel for sGuiteau WILL to-mor-
row. 60 into the Criminal Court and ask that cou.
sci be assigned to assist him in the defence OF the
assassin. He will also nle tAe following argument
In reference to his application for an order of the
court allowing witnesses fees &C.:
In TIE Supe7ne Court or the District or Co,,,,nho
or June Term, A. ID. 1881.
THE UNITED STATES vs. CHARLES ]. GuITEAU.
| Points on Application OF Defendant for an Order
| OF Court Allowing Witnesses Fees &C
MAY it please the Court: The defendant in this
| case has applied for An order under the Revised
Statutes. relating to the District of Columbia, as
"SEc. sse. In all criminal trials the Supreme
Court, or the judge irving the case, may allow
ant as may appear necessary, the fees thereof with
the costs OF servicc to be paid in the same manner
as government witnesses are paid"
| This statute was enacted February ~, 1867, and
was copied verbatim into the Revised Statutes as
section s'9 under an act of Congress entitled "An
act to revise and consolidate the st ,tutes OF the
United states. general and permanent in their ma
ture, relating to the District OF Columbia in force
on % the e. lst ida day OF December, AD. 1873" Approved
There has been no repeal or modification Of this
statute since February % 1867, unless it may be
|
statute OF the United States hereinafter referred to-
Twenty-one years before the passage OF the act
to regulate the proceedings in the circuit and dis
! trlct courts of the United Stltes, and for other
purposes" approved August s, 1885, section II Of
whi h Was Incorporated into the Revised Statutes
OF the United States as section S78, and reads as
follows:
| "Whenever any person indicted in q court of
the United States max affidavit setting forth that
there are witnesses whose evidence is m1torial to
his defence; that he cannot safely 90 t. trial with
! HOY hot hn sfc IN ~
| them; that they are within the district in which
the court is held. or within one hundred miles OF
the place OF trial; and that he is not possessed OF
sufficient MEANS AMI is actually unable t. pay the
fees OF such witnesses. the court In term, or any
| judge thereof in vacation, may order that such
witnesses be snbpGaaed If found within the
| limits aforesaid. In such case the costs incurred
| by the process and tie feespf the witnesses sh,l
be paid in the manner that similar costs and
! fees are paid in case OF witnesses subp9naed in
behalf of the United States'
This law has been in full force as a general law
or the United States since it was enacted It was Sd
In force on the % day OF February 1867, when the
! law as to practice In the Supreme Court OF the
enacsd u The uast reerfe1 m e TO- was az
was the law OF 1867 repealed by the law OF 1885, by
virtue OF statute approved Februar; 81 1871, in
latng to the District OF Columbia, follows, to
wit:
''Sec. g. The Constitution and all laws of the
United States which are not locally fnapplicable,
Shall have the same force and effect within the
District as elsewhere within the United States"
plain to need to be announced. Yet, since the
prosecution seriously maintains the Affirmative, let
OF course, the solution OF the question depends
upon ascertaining the intent of Congress. The
passage OF the act of 1857 while that OF 1916 in
make specific law for this District different from
the general law of the United States. The power
that intent been changed7 was it shown to be
changed by the act OF February 81 1871? Aside
from the settled rule OF construction, that special
Law will I'M bald
Bank Of alabama. ss Ala, $751; Blaln vs.. Bailey,
dicated Enthusiastically on this subject subsequent
to February q, 1871. An act was passed in 1874,
approved June q, 1874, entitled "An act to revise
and consolidate the statutes OF the United
relating to the District Of Columbia, in force on
OF this act is the one first above given, and is
thereby declared by Congress to have been 'gene-
raj and permanent In its nature" and to have been
'n force on the first day Of December A. d. 1879"
power, did it cease to be 'ln force?" Certainly not
through beth combined. for beth had been opera
tive from and after the 21st day OF February, 1871
and yet CONGRESS solemnlydeclared in 1874 that
the act OF 1857 was in full foEe and unrepealed on
the first day OF December, 1873 And 1t was re-
enacted coniontly with the declaration Of Con-
gress that IT WAS in force December l. 1873, the
9i day O. June 1874, as a laty general and peTma-
rm IN It's nture socially for the benefit OF de-
Court Of the n Dstrat Of ceabIa IN 'ne supreme
As further evidence that Il was the intention OF
Congress, to provide literally for the defence of ac-
entirely tmmaterial-the attention OF the court is
called tythe act passed two years before that OF
1857 providing for taking de?ositons OF witnesses
on behal: OF any defendant in a criminal prosecu-
ton in this court, where the hewitness resides more
than one hundred miles from the city Of Washing
ton. That act was approved March 8, 1865 and
was in full force when the at of 1867 was passed,
and was also Incorporated into the Revised stat
ntes OF this District in june 1874 making sections
Therefore wi tba tC OF
lS46 and 1865, both in full force and effect Congress
saw tit to enact the additional law OF 1867, giving
interest OF mercy and justice. have entire con-
tidence that this court will not defeat that humane
intention by any forced construction OF the stat
utes
While it is the rule that statutes naay be repealed
hy Implication, 1t is eqully we settled thatcourt5
acts of the legislature together. (Sedgw1ck on
Constructor OF Statutes, p 1O5, ct seq, and cases
The rule OF construction as to remedial laws is
very liberal: at has been held, in the case OF IA
remedial act, that everything is to be done in adj
sistently with any CONSTRUCTION that can be put
upon pom it, 90 tseagwlck on GoHDt St, p; scsl
cited by the prosect1on to sustain the position
that section 839 was repealed on the 22d day OF
I june ,a,i 1874, by 1 the re-enacment Of the laws
this is So Briefly stated the question in that case
was whether proviso enacted March 3, 1865, as an
also applicable as an amendment to a Special law
relating to this District OF the same general char
acter as the general law OF 1864 and the court held
IL 70 De 80 applicable by virtue OF the act OF Febru
ary u, ISL This statement shows at glance the
diherence In the two cases. In the one case, to
give the construction asked absolutely repealS a
special law by 1mplicaton in the other, the dec-
SION OF The supreme Court extends an amendment
or one law affecting the whole country SO as TO
make 1t apply to like statute OF this District.
But let us examine the case OF Page agt Burn. |
stein more at length. At the time OF the enacting
nf the amendment spoken of, to wit, March 3, 1865,
tnere was general law permitting parties to suits
70 testify In their own behalf The special statute
relating to the District OF Columbia was to the
same eject, though In somewhat different Ian
guage The amendment to the general law was as
lOloWs: "PrOrtded further, That in actions by or
against executors, administrators, or guardians, In
%hich Judgment may be rendered for or against |
Them, nether party shall be allowed to testify |
against the other as TO any transaction with or |
statement by the testator, interstate, or ward, |
unless called to testify thereto by the opposite
party or required to testify thereto by the court.
me question was, Whetherthis amendment should |
also De held applicable to the special law OF this
Distrlct by virtue OF the act of February 21, 1871,
DelnS section 93, aforesaid, which provided |
Clat all laws OF the United StlttS not |
locally 1napplicable, should have the same |
force and fffAt within the District as elsewhere.
Ihe supreme Court held the amendment applica- |
De and the gist OF the whole opinion is contained
Ia a sngle sentence, pnge 667, to wit: 'The same
uvI,l