The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1882-01-09


Davidge read one American case afteI
another sustaining his position. One was
that of a skipper who had killed a sailor
and pleaded periodical mania. When
tried. Judge Shiptry, of Maine, delivered
the charge in this case, which was similal
to that of Judge Davis. This charge de
molished the irresistible impulse theory.
There is plenty of law on the other side
of that issue" said Guiteau. We'll cal
your attention to this after while. 1t i
all one sided this morning. All Davidge,
cases in Federal or New York courts.
saw that il was Gods act, and that He has
and will take care OF IT.
Dayidoe-'sWe will come hereafter Il
the Deity part of this matter
Guiteall-ssIf YOU get the Deity d0WT
upon you He will stick to you all you
days in this world and the next. 1ol
ought to be asked, Davidge, to sell your
self for filthy lucre God Almighty vii
curse Won prosecutors. That's the opinion
of the American press, too.
Dayidge-.If this defense of uncontrol
able impulse is to be found only In the ab
surd pretense of inspiration, / want by thii
first prayer to put the conviction OF Thu
defendant beyond the possibility OF doubt
I need not have gone so far as l have
because we are not trying here a mar
whose intelligence is merely wrong. W.
are trying o lawyer"
You are trying man on the question
of his inspiration" said the prisoner
Davidge-''We are trying law ger ane
lecturer who, although an lmbecile fol
three weeks Gas claimed). transfgured II
the estimation of the jury and the worle
by his own testimony. The evidence from
sixty-four American courts, and courts o.
England was unbroken, establishing the
doctrine that if man knows the dlnerenct
between right and wrong he is responsible
though he be of little reason. eccentric ol
even partially insane"
Davidge referred to Mormon eass
decided by the Supreme Court, wherein the
defense set up that the Mormons practlcet
polgamy in obedience to the inspired wore
of God, was pronounced no defense.
"Yes,' said Guiteau, talk about tht
Mormons. They are breaking the Law
everE day.. and the Government doing
nothing about it,
Yes, said Davidge impressively
ssthey are breaking the law every day JUS
as the law has been broken in this case
under an alleged inspiration, which afford
no defense to the criminal. There is NJ
~-~~-N
obey the law. He cannot, having broker
the law. claim exemption from punishment
on the ground that he obeyed higher law
With these remarks I submit the prayer o
the prosecution, merely adding that thes'
propositions of law ought to be read to
gether, and when so collected, | thini
yonr honor win conclude that they com
pIetely cover the legal requirements of th'
case"
The Prisoner is an lnstl
tuition for the benefit of private lust. Nj,
act was a patriotic act for the benefit o
the American people. They are well salts
fed with my act,
REEDS ARGUMENT.
Reed opened the argument for the de
fense He promised his remarks by tn
concession that in the use of q deadl.
weapon in such a manner as to result il
death. the law presumed malice. Tha
need not be discussed The question
whether or not the killing of the Presi
dent, done with malice. was question en-
tirely or exclusively for the jury. TIL
defense claimed that the act was don
without malice II the jury had a reason
able doubt of the guilt of the accused
was their duty to acquit. They had n
| discretion as to insanity. The moder
doctrine was that if the jury had reason
able doubt of the sanity of the accuse
AT the time of committing the act. it wa
their duty to find mot guilty" Formerl
| insanity had to be proved by the defendaI
beyond any possible doubt.
The court-"In one state?"
Reed-'Yes. Then the doctrine win
modified. In the case of Massachusetts,
was decided that if insanity was proven @
| the weight of evidence the accused shoul
be acquitted But the courts have advan
ed from that ground and the doctrine no
held is that if there is reasonable dou
of the sanity of tie accused he is entItls
to acquittal."
Reed cited in this connection the case
s.Happs VS.. the people, S1st Illinois,
which the Judge. in shis charge said; :"
every criminal proceedings if a reasonab
doubt is entertained OF the guilt OF the a
cused the jury is bound to acquit." lnsa
: ity is not guilty; insanity is innocenee
: Therefore a reasonable doubt OF the SAM
: of the accused must acqult. The pl
2 sumption of innocence Is as strong as
e presumption of sanity
. he cited other cases and quoted from
decisions of Chief Justice Carter, of t
: Sunreme Court of the District of Columb
!: in the case of the United States VS.. ALB
. Nicholas, who held that if the jury had
: reasonable doubt on the question OF san
b 4 thew were bound 10 acquit. i ADM
e ! said Reed, ''that it viii be your Homo
- duty to tell the jury what F. reasona'
s doubt is. The question of what cons
/ tutes insanity, we submit, is questi
: solely for the jury"
: The court-'9The question of respor
Q bil;.v is for the court; question OF FAC
: for the Jury
n tumble this question of insanity into
It iury box. The court viii say WHAT'S lei
d insanity" = -,
v Reci-"Your Honor will giye you vle
n as to what constitutes insanity. but Whe
|, er this defendant was of sound mind or
B, Is q question for the jury. Is there
l. aroumeut made against the reasoning
1t Jndoe Breese. of Illinois, Judge Bellows
N New Hampshire and Judge Chalmers
A. Mississippi? Ought that not be law!
N would he monstrous and shocking
Is tice to see any man condemned TO the
ut lows abeut whose sanity any responsll
,e fair man could raise any question. III
er what is meant by reasonable dou
is some will saw that it viii turn man
e. in the country and he will kill someb'
re else. That is q question unworthy 70
IN suggested in court OF justice. Belii
IL ham. in England, tried many years a
If was hurried to the gallows and an
:, tdo,.bted lunatic was convicted and exc
- disgrace to British jnrispruder
! e. ,sis case all we ask is that your Ho
. ah.n Ii II .sy to tue jury. describing to tn