Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-12-20

-
From the New York Herald.
Expert testimony has been the most impor-
tant feature Of the Guiteau case for several
days now, and indeed, has alone been worthy
much attention. If We except the extremely
clear testimony by Reynolds Of his visits to the
prisoner In jail, showing how Guiteau reasoned
upon his crime before he adopted the theory Of
inspiration; and the testimony of Shaw, which
Indicated that passion for notoriety had long
stirred the accused to do some act that would
I'LL the world with his name
As expert testimony will probably fill the re-
naming days Of the trial and as this indeed is
likely to be the really decisive evidence In the
case, since responsibility is the only open ISSUE
II may not be amiss to take a glance at what
has already been shown in this field by capable
experts. Those who have testified are DIR. For
dyce Barker DR.. A. Mel. Hamilton. Dr. Noble
the prison physician. and DR.. Sptzka, who as
sumes. we believe, the position of specialist
In this field OF medical inquiry.
Dr. SpitZka's testimony was not the most
valuable, but it has attracted the most atten-
ton, because it is the only straightforward
declaration of the prisoners insanity made
by person who can be supposed to have
special knowledge on such subjects. 1t was
striking for its positive tone, for it seemed the
utterance of knowledge so clear that there was
no room for difference of opinion. This sort Of
testimony is admirable if the only purpose is to
SouN HiCc d HcSltdtiIlg jury, Slice men III DOUBT
are commonly determined by the unqualified
declarations Of one who pretends to know
DR.. Sptzka certainly did pretend to know,
and TO such an extent that he might have been
saluted as he left the stand with the Scriptural
phrase, mo doubt but We are the people. and
wisdom Shall die with you But the declara-
ton OF this gentleman that if any person said
Guteau was not insane that person was not an
expert; or, If an expert, not honest. went so
far as to be more offensive than scientific, and
I'm In - @x>.x:
ing that this witness mind tended to extreme
expressions Every declaration that on moOted
points of inquiry leaves no room for doubt is
shallow, unph:losophical and untrustworthy
In Dr. SplfZkas nomenclature Guiteau's case
IS one of 'congenital moral mOnstrOsity," but
the Doctor held that as between moral monst ro-
slty and total depravity. standing by them
selves. he doubted ifhe could observation-disclosures
fore. in order to make the case clearly one of
moral monstrosity. as he held it to be- and not
OF total depravity. as the prosecution holds it to
De, he adduced various physical evidences and
some less tangible bases of opinion to aid his
discrimination. His points of support are the
family history. the history of the individual. the
mans own allegation. which puts all his reason
ing on the ground of assumptions that are not
sane; the shape of his head, the cOuntenance
the tongue, the manner. and the general inn
preston that all these made upon the witness
There is not one point in all this that stands
firm. In the family history it has been shown
just as in many other families there are ac-
cidental wooden legs: but no such faint as
involves the necessary Inheritance of a crippled
brain. In the individuals own history there is
evidence enough of moral monStrosty;"
but moral monstrosty is in this
sense mere phrase, for it only implies out
rageOus departure from the common rule of
life that controls everybody. and such depar-
ture is crime. unless it can be shown that the
man is victim rather than an agent in the de-
TO nh
indications does no: show this. His account of
the effect of inequality in the halves of the era
mum was wild imaginat ION. There is per
hapS. not human creature whose head. meas
ured by the most accurate instruments. would
be found precisely symmetrical and from the
slightest to the greatest every degree of varia-
ton is found: and there are even some patho-
logical facts which indicate that sanity may be
consistent with the abiatl0n or destruction of
half the brain. Crania are always uneven. be-
cause the skull is a mere case that grows to nit
its contents the brain. and the halves of the
brain are necessarily unequal
Or. Fordyce Barker testified directly and eX-
plicitly that the accused was sane and gave
good and clearly stated reasons for his opinion
DIR. Noble testified that the prisoner was sane.
ana as shreWd a man las you would meet in a
summers day. This testimony of the jail ply
stefan is, from the opportunities of observation
Implied in the witness position. of peculiar and
especial value. Dr. Hamilton. also a specialist
in cerebral maladies. testified that he found in
the prisoner no evidence of insanity and no
Signs OF cerebral disease. He observed facts
moreover that are Inconsistent with the exist
ence OF such Il condition of the brain as is SUP
posed in the theory OF the defence The most
decisive of these was the healthy condition of
the SKIN. Sham insanity does not make an ln-
healthy skin. but real insanity does. Altogether
the weight 81 expert testimony is very much
against the defence