Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1882-02-02
FElGNEO FURY.
Lawyer Scoville's Remarkable Defense
of His kinsman, the Assassin

Guiteau.
Chicago Times.
AS the evidence of the case is not a
very pleasing subject for Mr.. Scoville's
he is endeavoring, with consid
erable ingenuity, to entertain the
jury with other topics. Having in
dicted the attorneys and the witnesses
for the government for entering into a
conspiracy to hang Guiteau, he now
goes one step farther back and arraigns
all the stalwart leaders as accessories
before the act. Doubtless their attacks
on President Garfield furnished Guiteau
with all the inspiration that his disap-
pointment, his conceit, and his passion
for notoriety failed to. furnish. But
this issue presents a dilemma. Either
the opposition of the stalwarts to the
president was of such a nature as
would lead sane man to suppose that
they would be glad to have the presi.
dent removed" or it was not. If it
was, then one Of the strongest reasons
for raising the presumption of insanity
in behalf of Guiteau is at once destroy
ed; If it was not, then it is useless to
connect it with the assassination. OF
course, it Is impossible TO know in ad-
vance how a diseased mind will act
what is a reason for a sane man is not
for an insane one. and cice Sersd. 1t is
impossible for men to order their con-
duct with view to affording a lunatic
no cause for committing assassination,
for no man can foretell what kind of
conduct will impel lunatic to hon.
icidal act. Consequently, if Guiteau be
insane it is absurd to hold anybody to
blame for his crime, but if there are
politicians who practically, but not in
direct form, melted him to bis crime,
then there is good ground to believe
him sane. Mr.. Scoville says that Grant,
COnkling, and Arthur are anxious to
have Guiteau proved sane, and to that
end are trying to influence the case oD
trial, because if he be sane he will
serve as a scapsgoat for them, while if
he be insane they will be held at the
bar Of public opinion guilty in some de-
gree of the death of the president.
This is a manifest absurdity. The
late presidents opponents were the
readiest to declare Guiteau to be crazy,
while it was the friends of President
Garfield who sought to show that Gui-
teau was sane, and that his conduct
was a 10y no means surprising result
OF the war on the administration. If
the stal warts wanted tool, they would
not be likely to employ lunatic, and
IL their opposition furnished rational
explanation of Guiteau's act, then the
presumption is very strong that Gui-
teau was rational.
The stalwarts did, in certain sense,
cause the assassination. That is to
say. their attacks on the president did
suggest to Guiteau the idea that he
would be a big man among the stall
warts if he killed the president. But
this shows that he was governed by
tfe sane considerations that govern the
sanest man in the country; he only
made a mistake in judgment as to the
relative strength in the stalwart mind
OF adherence of murder and of dislike to
President Garfield. The more RESPONSE
BILE the stalwarts are held to be, the
more sane must Guiteau be held to be
and, conversely, the more insane Gui-
teau is, the more ridiculous it is to con-
meet his act with anything that other
people said or did; the freak of n mad
man can not be charged to anyone. II
Guiteau was so crazy that he was not
responsible for his act, certainly no one
else can be held responsible for it, ex.
cept on the ypOthesis-which no one
has been wild enough to put forth
that Grant, and Conkling, and Platt
and other stalwarts hired Guiteau tC
kill President Garfield, and that he did
not know any better than to do what
he was told to do.
That Gorham and some other stal.
warts ought to be ashamed of the
language they used is true enough; that
republican orators and editors ought tC
be ashamed of describing the democrat:
in such way that Guiteau really be.
lieved their advent to power would bt
the ruin of the country, is equally true
There are so many men like GuiteaU
around that it is surprising that his i:
the first act OF assassination that ha:
resulted from the reckless abuse of no
htical opponents that is so common
There are undoubtedly scores of thou
sands of republican voters. of unques
toned sanity, who really believe thai
democrats are immoral personally, anC
politically are the enemies of the cOun
try, and it Is strange, now that GuiteaU
killed man to prevent a division in tn,
republican party and democratic sue
cess, but that the thing was never
done before. But man is not obliged
to do everything that he is told, or infers
would be justified, nor is he obliged Il
yield to temptation. After all is sale
that can be said as to the indecency o.
the weapons used in political warfare
and the mendacity that characterize,
campaign oratory and literature, tn,
fact remains-and it is the only fac
that is vital to this case-that Guiteal
was able to do rs be pleased, and HI
deliberately pleased to com nit murder
Perhaps he did believe that to kill Gar
feld would be to confer a great bene6
on the country; he had it in his powe
to confer that imagined benefit or not
and as he chose to Go it he must stand thl
responsibility. Perhaps he did believ,
that the Deity told him to commit hi
crime; he could have obeyed the com
mand or not; he chose to obey, and i
he thereby saves his soul he ought no
to complain If he loses his life; he il
not the first man who has gone to deatl
for what he believed the Deity haC
commanded him to do. But those whC
have violated the laws, really believin,
that they were commanded. to do so
have done it expecting to die, and hav,
faced the inevitable with some degre,
Of fortitude, and have not made dis
gusting exhibitions of themselves
When Guiteau shot the president b.
knew he was violating the law, and h
knew that he could violate the law O
not, and he chose to violate it. Tha
settles the matter as to him. An in