New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-07-06
g. TITE1T'S PTNTSH NENT

Should the hope of the country be realized,
and the President survive and recover, the
question of the day will be: What punishment
can he inflicted on Guitcau7 No special law
exists Furnishing an unsuccessful attempt to
Kill the President. 1t cannot be dealt with as
treason, unless committed in aid or further
ancc of some disturbance tantamount to war,
for the Constitution expressly limits treason to
ltvying war against the United States, or adj
herring to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort. The life of the President, or of any
other officer of the Government, is regarded
by the existing law only as is that of a pr-
vate individual; it receives the same protec-
ton and no more.
The law applicable is, undoubtedly, Section
1,150 of the United States Revised Statutes
relating to the District of Columbia, a volume
which must be distinguished from the ono or
dinarily known as the United States Revised
Statutes. lts language is:
Every person convicted or manslaughtcr, any
sau with intent to Kill, shall bo scntenced to suffer i'm
prisonmcnt and labor for the first offence for period
not less than than eight years for the
second offence for period OF less six nor more
than fifteen years.
The idea will be unwelcOme to most persons
that the imprisonment for an assault with in
tent to kill the President cannot exceed eight
years. All accounts agree, however, that Gui-
teau deliberately aimed and fired two shots. It
will be worth the while of those who NAV
move in prosecution to consider whether these
were not separate attempts to kill the first
one constituting first offence punishable by
eight years; the second, second offence, pun
ishable by fifteen years additional. Of course
everyone understands that one who steals a
wallet cannot be charged with rs many
ntufn Al
bank notes III it; nor can one who.
in fist fight, strikes a dozen blows.
be charged with twelve distinct assaults. In
the majority of cases the common sense view
would be to regard the whole Transaction
taking place at one time rs an entirety and Il
single offence. But there is some reason for
distinguishing two distinct shots fred An
assailant takes am-iircs- misses He then
deliberately aims agan-fi rcs-and hits. Courts
sometimes draw nicer distinctions than it would
be to hold that the second shot is n second
attempt. Though no doubt, the general pur-
pose of these "second ollcncen laws contcm
plates second conviction for a crime COM
mittcd after a first ono.
Tweed was tried for frauds on the CITY.
under Il law which allowed only one wears
Imprisonment for such II fraud. But he WAS
found guilty OF a great number; and ,Judre
DAVIS sentenced him to twelve successive wears
OF imprisonment upon twelve of his mistlccds
The Court OF Appeals said that this WAS
wrong; that cumulative sentences IA
second term to commence after first
has been served-arc not allowable. But
when the Tichbornc "cIaimantn WAS con-
V!ctcd, IN England, Of two pcrjurics committed
In swearing to matters in support of his claim.
ne was sentenced IN II similar way and the
English Court of Appeal and House of Lords
have lately pronounced it correct His LAWYER
read the Tweed decision to them /; but thew
said " That may be New-York lew: if is
not English" Should the District of Columbia
Court, which will have the trying of Guitcon
take the English view, it may be that he could
be sentenced to two successive imprisonments
for his two shOts-nOt to exceed twentv-three
years in all.
insanity is fOreshadOwed as the defence. No
one can say negatively that Guiteau is not q
iuh;itc. But no one can pronounce him to be
one In sense to exempt him from punish
nent on the general accounts of his conduct
and language which have been made nuhl;c
mans words and acts cannot by themselves
prove insanity in the legal sense tbouob
they may lead one to suspect it, and NAV
corroboratc II belief in it, But however fool
1911 vi """''V"ho'iDic LHcy may there ia
always the further question Are they the pro-
duet of disOrdered brain Motiveless tolIv
vagaries OF thought and act morbid broodino
over fancied wrongs, or nursing a thirst for
revenge, are not insanity. In the sense of the
criminal law the word involves disorder of the
brain. 1t is not uncommon to say that there
must be disease Of the brain. Disease NAV III,
too narrow word but there must be clear
indications of impairment of tho brain
considered as physical organ. The
subject must not merely have behaved fool
lshly he must have done so because he had
not an organization enabling him to know the
nature and wrongfulness of his act Counsel
for the defence are always ingenious in mar.
shaling indications that their client suffered
from brain disease, and when these are shown
the folly and absurdity of his conduct and
language are important in addition. 1t will be
time enough 10 enter upon any question OF