Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1881-09-24
HOW SHALL GUITEAU BE PUNIsHED7

Chief magistrate OF the republic, a sor-
row stricken people frequently turn
their thoughts to thec u OF the great
calamity, and at every corner l have
been asked where under the law must
Fthe assassin of the dead president be
tried. l have as often replied in the
District of Columbia, but the questions
growing out of the complications aris-
ing from the death Of the president in
New Jersey, I take it, are more serious
than ever lawyers who have not exam
ined the question specially would be In
clined to suppose.
The question is: II a fatal blow be
given IN one state aud death takes place
in another. in which jurisdiction must
the accused be tried? In homicide,
the better authorities, and the decided
weight OF authority, is that all the nee
essary elements, malice, premedl-
tation, &C., being present, the
crime consists in The infection of the
blow. For while, of course, there can
be no homicide without death, still the
death ID the result Of the
blow which constitutes the cor,
pus delscts. 'The reader percelves
that according to the case mentioned in
the last section, the crime, in a feloni-
Gus homicide, consists in the infliction OF
the blow. and the act OF dying. which Is
performed by the party injured. does not
enter into the crime in any measure for
ii it did the English courts lin cases be-
fore clted) would plainly have had ]u-
risdiction. And this doctrine accords
with what was before laid down in an
English cast when it was held, that q
homicide is committed in a county, If
the blow Is inflicted in it. though the
death takes place elsewhere. This is
plainly the true doctrine. though il our
own work on criminal procedure we shall
see that it has not always been IL the
mindsof the Judges" Il Bishop criminal
law, section SO, and cases cited. al
But In some states they have statutes
(and In New Jersey where president
Garfield died, they rave or had) intend
ed to give the courts of the state where
the party died jurisdiction. As applied to
the crime of murder where the blow is
inflicted in another state it is Difficult, to
see how the constitutionality OF such a
law can be maintained, though decided
by a divided court IN Michigan to be
constitutional. Tyler VS.. People, 8
Mich, 800. But Bishop (vol. l, section
84), states that in such cases they are
unconstitutional-that they do not bind
tho courts as it is not competent for leg
islatures to bind them in such cases.
This may be regarded as almost settled
by precedent, and is unquestlonably the
true doctrine. In fact the supreme court
OF New Jersey in passing on the New
Jersey statute has held that they have
no jurisdiction in such Eases 1t was
attempted to hold a defendant guilty of
homicide (murder) when a blow was in
| licted in New York and death took
place in New Jersey; but the court
would not allow the enactment to have
this operation. The court says 'ssuch
an ENACTMENT upon general principles,
would be void it would give the courts
Of this state jurisdiction over all the
subjects OF all governments of the earth,
with the power to try and punish them
if they could by force or fraud get pos
session OF their persons, in all cases
where personal injury Is followed by
death. No act is done in this state by the
defendant The coming OF the party ill.,
jured into this state afterwards was his
own voluntary act, and in no way the
act OF the defendant. An act TO be
criminal must. be alleged to be an
otfense against the sovereignty of the
government. This is the very essence
Of crime punishable by human law. How
can an act done in one Jurisdiction be an
offense against the sovereignty OF an
other" State vs.. Carter, 8 butcher,
499.
Therefore, on principle as well as by
IN New Jersey the newspaper talk about
the assassin being taken to New Jersey
for trial goes for naught.
He must be tried in the District of
Columbia, and here it is to be hoped by
all good people he may be tried without
any question as to the jurisdiction of the
court, but even here tor a reason soon to
be stated a grave doubt is created by q
decision of the circuit court "of the
United statea, for the circuit at that time
embracing the District OF Columbia. 1t
has been held by the court OF appeals
(,upreme court) of Virginia, that if a
person be stabbed in Virginia and diein
another state, the defendant cannot be
indicted for murder in any county In Va,
though he may be for the stabbing in
the county where il occurred. Com. vs..
Linton, 2 Va, cases 2O5. Judge Wash
ington, of the U. S. supreme court, held
that when the party died on land the
u. S. courts had no jurisdiction, though
the blow was struck on the ocean. U.
S., vs.. Maglll, l Wash. G. G. 463.
This may be regarded as the law
when not changed by statute. In many
if not all the states. this defect is
died by statute at the present day, and
such statutes are not open to objections
on constitutional grounds since, as we
have seen, the crime of murder is in the
lphiction Of the blow. Ii, therefore, the
laws OF congress for the government, of
the District (not accessible here) like
the laws CT the several states provided
tor a case when the act is lone in the
District, and death follows in another
jurisdiction, then the difficulty which
arises on the authority OF 9 Va, cases
2O5, and l Wash e. G. 463, and other
cases 80 deciding the lew, Is obviated.
Otherwise there Is but one course lett,
and that is Tor congress on first ASSEM-
bling to pass the necessary act yestlng
jurisdiction in the Supreme court OF the
District of Columbia. Such an act
should not be an e0 post Iiacto law-as
1t would not create the offense or change
the punishment. but only vest iurisdic,
ton to try for an act already a CRIME.
Lexington, Mo-, Sept. Il, 1881.