New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-01-05

the defence, but would allow them every iau'u"e' 0
did not think the prosecution had occupied more tnan
two weeks All the OF the time had been charged 10
The defence.
Mr. scoyine-It has boon said that we have had onr
experts hero: to q limited extent that is true nut '"
want Of means such "a th- Government controlled
The ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS power has the Govern
nent had that yOu have nSt hadf
Mr.. scoville-I will state what has appeared IN c'r
dence that on the simple teegraphic request oil 'ue
District Attorney these scientific gentlemen nave IcH
their charges al the Union, ana sat mere Nceh ~
week. expecting, they have themselves "S'ihou' "
he paid the fun compensation for their time not limiting
themselves at all to the 81 % day wich 'le oAP0
for the defence compelled 20 take
The District Attorney is all the experts for the
Government have had
ONE DIFFICULTY OF THE DEFENCE
Mr. scovie-That is all; but every one has sworn tha'
NE expected 10 he paid compensation for his ume anu
We all know what that is with gentlemen OF that char
actor The difficulty under which the defence mas SUI
fercd has been TO obtain these experts where Is tne
expert for the defence have been able to keep
after the last train when his time was upf Anu noio
these gentlemen waiting now In tne van & nt
tion OF seeing the result n the hanging OF ths Hh
the law and the jury stand between 'nein "H' '""' ~
Mr sooyne went on to that it was only within
the last three DAYS he had heard of Dr. McFarlan, anu
what he could testify about Luther W Guiteau Most
of the witnesses named In the adav wef stood in the
came relation the the mn IN
forehand definitely what they would testify TO.
Mr. DhVidge-Then you do not KNOW IL
20 two of them-BroOks and RathbOne-from report
published in The Boston Go6e on the fourth o. July;
Their testimony is important, because II Is cIalhcu ny
The prosecution that the prisoner dd hct to Weeks
s ~1ep the occnpTepce. During those weeks
THE District Attorney bad frequent interviews WIN ne
hand writer and yet that period of time was uiIefy par
ren OF all proof on me part 81 nf oo6 he Of east
service the prosecution II certainly woud nave Oee
presented and the defence can produce any veg
tmony covering that period or time, we shou n 49, T
lowed 20 do IT, That is what we propose tou oS DooAS
The district Attorney in the OF some remarks
alluded TO Dr. Mcfarland as =" so-caned qoctor alu
his qualifications were. The fact OF his oferng 40
give an opinion from newspaper reports was Ialr hd
cation TO the Court and jury ana country "h4V AHu u
The pgisoner-l did not intend to say anything about
The case this morning. bnt simply pToposs 10 r th
what be proved by McEresh aud Brooks. (io tne
deputy Marshal, who was ehdeaFOilus 10 RESTRAIN MN
Now do 9G keep q9 6d or ycr 6R St O was the pot
icsl situation which made shoot the President !
propose TO SHOW by Mr. Brooks that he to my cell
ton thai there some great conspiracy dsabuSeG
ms mint that point aud told MN tnat thGrg Ts no
conspiracy the mater, Dut mat vas Ihuu'tu 70 o
The account OF the political situation ana unof
prove by these vo gentlemen.
Nj Reed referring to the DstrictAttorneys remark
about Dr Mci Miand sald That III me Mest Wh0e n
gentleman known and has been known ior iLrt{-lFo
years the peer Of any expert that had testheu III
the case. ..,., .-,.,.
interviews mad him Oil the Atm OF July by the DIS
trc Attorney and MA stenOgraPher Bailey ana 70 nc
fact that I:aey's note book had been destroyed IN
those he had told al about the pOluci s1ua'
ude Cox 9ai he had appreciated the outset the
difficulties whicH cOlnse for the defence laDOreo
Mr. scovilio had come mere STRANGER TO the
place and people and the practice Of the Court anu
had been comparatively stranger to the prlsohef MN
several years Ii Was seen at tue outset nat ne
could receive very ltt'o %ssl.taiee ron 'T Cons
difficulty That counsel mad 70 encounter was Lae ~u
attached the assassination, and whch dIsilSLheI
fnese were very great difficulties, end he appreciated
them fully t6s felt II his duty. IN order 70 sectre
the prisoner trial, 10 CIV" certain latitude - thv
defence and such facilities rs correspond Win tne
Tat mind naylHf ~ r. important
would deem II ms duty
ns that the testimony for the defence was ionHBsiy
of the testimony proposed TO be introduced was
offered character OF ourre0utung testimony anu
as 10 the condition OF the prisoner mind
THE LAW AND THE PRACTICE DEFINED.
He understood the law ana practice To De simply TINS
The law presumed sanity aud the first affirmative test-
,oDy Oh that had to from the defence TX
mort tesuouv was part Of the evidence Ia chief for
The defence Oh that issue, and all the expert testimony
on which the defence relied must be offered ID chlef
Part of il could be reserved TO be offered
h% way OF surrebutng testimony After that testimony
was in. then became the duy and inc Tlslt OF '.e
prosecution offer evidence on the general question OF
INSANITY The prosecution was not confined TO TIE mere
contradiction OF Witnesses Tor Tie defence DIt ~ iSn
the question and Oner independent anu
anTma;tve proof that question part OF that est
& go srictv in contradiction OF the medical
Inony for the because one mans opinion Wasnot
n contradiction of another mans OPINION nut IL Was
offered independent testimony when t ,i
testimony was fCSe 9ofen U was restricted 70
contradiction OF facts that may have been teseu To Oh
the part Of the prosecution ~ was DO. aO%eI 70 con
tradct an expert the part OF the prosecution ~ tne
testimony OF another pert wn9 had dln,fGht SpCn
II would run reoinder aud surIeJonder ana 10 al
,he iunuucIaDle issues which the nseHdy Ol COuIse4
might devise. 80 that the privilege OF prodiSa ehI9r
testimony limited TO the evidence 10 chleI or ,ae
Ceeuce and 10 the evidence IN ehle lor s1e
He therefore thought that tho testimony OF d hctAI-
land could not received the question o. e prison
Srs sanity The offer also made 10 prove thst I'M
mcdiatey after the assasslliaton' '"o W bm tLs
claimed have acted under INSPIRATION M9eh 'he
prisoner was the stand rs witness be testified tha ne
hnd committed this act under what ne called nulereh
~ usDration" pressure To reDuj mat testimony
tesIed mai he had interview with the prisoner two
weeks after the assassination and that IN that inter
view the prisoner did claim To have acted under IN
splIaton, 16 hii Of the Goyernment 10 prove that
me did not claim Inspiration, out simply 10 ASK tho jury
90 infer that the prisoner never AID claim thls msplra
sfer he had discovered that these men whom lie sup
posed ne WAS beneBung by his deed haH repu0ated
ase uut Inv the prosecution To the experts assumed
that no claim OF having acted under Inspiration was
=" fhe lime OF TINS interview Of Mr. Reynolds with hum
would be an answer TO that 10 snow on me T9iS
ton As surreDuttng testimony thai evidence ought 10
lie received. 1t struck him ar strictly snreOuuus Ies
ffmony AS to the other testimony offered "1lch was
nos in reply anything on the part OF the government
shod summon all the witnesses whose
dorsed the Indictment and wss really hclmneht on
tbe Government matter OF fairness, 10 summon Ill
The Witnesses who had been present al IN transaction
snu a. o. line ali the Witnesses so summoned: but as
soon as the for the Government was closed these
witnesses at the disposal OF the defence Inc
nroDer tune defence call upon them was when
the reDuttng testimony was IN course OF Presentation
In this the defence has occupied two weeks IN he
presentation of ts rebuttng testimony and was al that
imc that strictly speaking, tls evidence should have
been offered IL offered at al,
y