The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1882-01-19
THE PROCEEDINGS
In the Murder Trial of Chas. j. Guiteau.
Tho Arguments or Counsel Before the
Jury Nearing the End.
rHE AnauMENrs BEGUN.

Tho Arguments OF Counsel Before tne
Jury Nearing the End.
THE ARGUMENTS BEGUN.
Davidge opened the arguments onithe 7th
inst, upon theslegal points and was followed
with the closest attention. He began by read
ing and then elaboratipg the prayers of gov
ernment, which ask the Judge to instruct the
jury that If the prisoner knew at the time of
the shooting the difference between right and
wrong, he was at that time sane and RESPONSE
BILE. Dayidge, with the prayers in his hand,
said IN low but distinct tones and measured
language, that they consisted, first, of the
above definition OF sanity second, Of the dec
aration that if the prisoner possessed ability TO
so distinguish between right and wrong, no
irresistible passion or impulse, no uncontroll-
able @desire, no inofai depravity would excuse
his act; third, q declaration that the standard 4
Of insanity must be that of the law; fourth,
that no delusion Of ability to distinguish be-
tween right and wrong being present would
excuse the prisoner. Davidge thought the ]
prayers of the defense bearing on points
contained in the prayers Of the prosecution
ment. He said that the law drew line
Of responsibility for crime somewhere.
There were infinite degrees ofgintelligence.
Think of the illustrious victim of this prisoner
on one hand and this assassin on the other.
v
intelligence on one hand, and the highest on
the other, in respect of responsibility for
crime. This prisoner had been portrayed as an
lmbecile until he went upon the stand and tore
himself into shreds and atoms. A man might
be peculiar, and might even be partially insane,
but II he rose to point of intelligence which
enabled him to know the difference between
right and wrong, and that what he was doing
was wrong, then he was responsible for the
wrong. Dayidge read one case after another
sustaining his position her plenty ys.d of
Guiteau. "I say it was Gods act" Davidge
replied: "We will come to the Deity part after
awhile. am saying nothing about that
now. II this defense of uncomfortable
impulse is to be found only in the absurd pre-
to put the conviction of this defendant far be-
yond the possibility of doubt. I need not
have gone SO far as have gone, because we are
not trying here man whose grade of inteli-
gence is merely wrong. We are trying law
although imbecile for three weeks Gas claimed
by the defense), was transfgured, in the esti-
nation of the Jury and the world, by his own
testimony. The line Of precedent from 1S43
down in these Courts, and in the Courts Of
trine that If q man knows the difference
between right and wrong he is re-
sponsible, though he be of little rea-
son, eccentric, or even partially insane.s
Dayidge referred to Mormon case decided by
the Supreme Court, wherein the defense that
Mormons practiced poligamy in obedience to
the inspired Word of God was pronounced no
defense. "Yes,n said Guiteau, "talk about
Mormons they are breaking the law every
about it" aYes," said Davidee, impressiYeiyS,
they are breaking the law every day, just as
the law was broken in this case, under an al
legged inspiration, which affords no defense to
q criminal. There is no higher law known to
the law. A man must obey the law. He can
not, having broken the law, claim exemption
from punishment on the ground that he obeyed
higher law. With these remarks" said Da-
vidge, 81 submit the prayers of the prosecu-
ton, merely adding that those propositions
SO collected, think your Honor will como
to the conclusion that they completely
cover the legal requirements Of the case"
A sensation was created by Judge Porter read
ing from newspaper slips the charge of Judge
Davis MsT York; oti's to the Jury il the the
proceeding, but Judge Cox ruled that the mat
ter was undoubted authority and applicable in
this case. When Davidge resumed, Guiteau
again shouted: 81 want to get this thing right
before the,jury. Every one knows all about
that Coleman case. The jury gave verdict
against that charge, and this prosecution know
it we'll" The effect was electrical when Dayidge,
in most deliberate and earnest manner, said !:
Your Honor, this man for three weeks has
been held up to us as an imbecile, and now
listen to him. He not only knows the differ
encetbetNeen right and wrong, but he under
stands fully the law Of the case"
Guiteau shouted: "Transitory mania That's
my case. don't pretend to be insane now.
I've got as good head as you or Porter. SEQ
vile is fool, though. Ali want is two hours
before that jury" A lively scene here ensued,
and Judge Cox was compelled to rap for order.
Guiteau subsided, and Davidge continued with
out further interruption to the close of his
argument. Col. Reed opened the argument
for the defense. The question of malice, he
said, need not be discussed. If the Jury had q
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused it
was their duty to acquit him. They had no
discretion. As to insanity, the modern doctrine,
the better doctrine, was that if the jury had q
at the time Of committing the act, it was their
duty to find him not guilty. Reed cited the
case of Happs va. the People, Thirty-frst 1Ili-
nois, in which the Judge, in his charge, said
sin every criminal proceeding, if reasona-
BILE doubt Is entertained of the guilt of the
is guilt; insanity is innocence. Therefore, a
reasonable doubt Of the sanity Of the accused
must acquit The presumption of innocence is
as strong as the presumption of sanity" Reed
cited other cases in further support of his
position. He also quoted from decision of
Chief Justice Cartier, Of the Supreme Court Ct
the District Of Columbia, in the case of the
United States against Albert Nicholas 1t was
there held that if the jury had reasonable
| doubt on the question Of sanity they were
bound to acquit the accused. "I admit, "
said Mr.. Reed, sit will be your Honor'a
| duty to tell the jury what reasonable doubt
I is. The question of what constitutes insanity,
we submit, is q question solely for the jury.
.Send lunatic to the gallows!" exclaimed
Reed. "When the jury considers the evidence
in the seclusion Of the jury-room, they may
say: well, this man committed an awful
crime, atrocious, indescribable, unparalleled
in history, yet we are not quite certain that he
knew he was doing wrong Is it not the doc
trine of humanity to give man the benefit oi
that doubt and hesitation and for the Court t.
say to the jury: If you have reasonable
doubt it is your duty to give the benefit of it tx
the accused?'" Scoville begun his argument
shortly after which Court adjourned for tht
day.