New-York tribune., 1882-02-20
JUDGE cox DEFENDED.
A LETTER FROM JUDGE CHARLES ]. M'CURDY, OF
CONNECTICUT

LETTER FROM JUDGE CHARLES j. M'CURDY, OF
CONNECTICUT.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
SIR: 1t has been well said that to every question
tbere is another side" 1t seems to me that this is
especially applicable to the criticisms the Gui-
teau trial. No deny that much in the course
of it was new, strange, and exceedingly ofen-
sive. But so the man, the crime and the
character of the defence. Seldom. if ever, was
prisoner placed at the bar under such load of
mer ed hate yet az a lawyerh lie had right TO con-
duet his own case and a witness he had right to
tell his own story TO the Jury He claimed that he
was insane when he fired the pistol, but had been
sane ever since. His counsel insisted that he was
only crazy the time of the fatal shot, but was
just much 80 then, in the presence of court and
Jury. The counsel both sides agreed they must
have DONE that his sayings, dOngs and appearances
on the trial legitimate evidence on
the question of his sanity.
His lawyers manifeStly supposed that the more
reckless ferocious and fantastic was his behavior,
and the more abusive be was even toward them
selves, the stronger the presumption of his
madness. The prosecution on the other hand
claimed that his crime was the effect Of tiendish
malice, and his freaks cOnrt were continuation
" of the same sort'; and the more he overdid his
part the clearer was the evidence of the cheat.
With this belief they requested the Judge to allow
him the fullest swing. That they were right Is
proved by the verdict of he jury which assures
him fur her and final opportunity to swing. 1t
may be said of him said of Cicero in refer
ence his scathing nvectives against Anthony and
Clodius that d" his tongue cost him his head
But there
Ends, suspect, the likeness OF the pair"
Certainly it is not for the pubic-anxious in the
interests of justice for his convictiOnto complain
nf+ Of all contributed
to effect It,
1t is true that sometimes when his abuse became
utterly insulerabe, all parties seemed desirOus TO
suppress him. But how that 10 be dOne'
Should he have been turned out of cOurt-that is
should man on trial for his life, under show of
vindictiveness hardly reDressbe, be deprived of
any opportunity of facing his r;ers or accusers or
speaking to his counsali Had this course been
taken well might our cousins over the charge
us with having relapsed into the barbarism, which,
not so very long ago, characterized their own crni-
nal proceedings and disgraced their "atrocous
judges" Besides, for the Court to punish him for
contempt would have been to take the case away
from the jury. and to decide in advance the very
question which they were impanelled to
pass upon, whether these apparent out
RACES, basphemies abuses OF Court, counsel
witnesses, relatives, and the rest Of mankind"
a craftily concerted scheme of fraud and deception
Eminent experts were engaged to sit by and hear,
sec and watch him. and then tell the jury what they
thought of his sanity Why should not an intellt-
gent jury be allowed the same means of forming
their own opinion instead of taking it wholly at
second hand
But what other effo IT should have been made to
restrain him 7 Some one has suggested the discp-
line of gagging him. Such a spectacle never yet
was seen i'll court of justice, for the officers Of the
law 10 seize n prisoner and pry open his mouth and
insert a stick upright or transverse, between his
Jaws, and keep him in this painful and ludcrous
predicamen through the dreary trial. Still another
mode has been proposed-to station a 5toat man by
his side so rs to stop his rawlings by placing
brawny hand across his mouth This might
have been easier to say than TO do. IL should be
remembered that he too is strong. reckless and des
perate and then at least he would have been actu-
ally mad The intrusive hand would have been
likely To sultrr and the man himself might have
been hOOred. Not lmprubably general hight would
have ensued. and the courtroom have borne the ap
pearancc from day to day of dog pit
| think, therefore, it must he evident that dis
gushing The scenes so frequently were, yet owing
10 the pccuiaTtles of this remarkable case the diff
fcutiCs were unavoidable; and of course the Judge
has been unjuStly and cruelty condemned. lie went
into the trial with q high reputation for talent |
l'aTnng and integrity, and he has done nothing TO
impair il. His incidental rulings appear 10 have |
been correct, and if they sometimes otherwise
the error on the SIDE of mercy and was calcu- |
lated TO prevent the nOerable calamity OF another
trial. His charge 70 the jury was admirable, and
the result has been satisfactory to the CIVILIZED
world. The sober second thoughts OF the cOmmu- |
nifty will unquestiOnably accord to him the well |
known description OF Horace: A Just man, !
tenacious OF his purposes, and unmOyed either by |
the frowns of threatening tyrant or the pressure
of mob clamorrng for evil"
Lyme. Conn, Feb, IS. 1882.