The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-01-05
The (suisenu Trial.

the prisoner; tnal tnc prisoner nas Decn III
such q state Of mind that he has been un-
able TO render any assistance or suggest the
names OF any witnesses, and that aftiant
has since closing the case learned the names
Of certain witnesses who can testify TO ma
terial facts for the defence. After giving
the names Of witnesses and briefly stating
what he expected TO prove by each, Mr..
Scoville moved that he be allowed to intro
duce this evidence.
Judge Cox inquired ifthc counsel de
sired to be heard upon motion.
Colonel Corkhill said, 81 hardly think
ANYTHING need be said"
Colonel Reed addressed the court in favor
OF the motion. He was aware that the
matter was entirely with the discretion OF
the Court. IL was net, however, without
precedent, and that, too, in q United States
court. He then cited cases in support OF
his argument, and said that in this country
il was the boast OF our free institutions that
a poor man should have the same rights in
a court of justice rs a denzen OF palatial
mansion, and he felt assured that the Ameri-
can people would not begrudge one extra
day that was asked in behalf OF this prisoner
in the name OF justice and fair trial.
Mr.. Davidge replied at some length, and
denied that any precedent existed for the
re0pcning OF this case simply to introduce
cumulative evidence, particularly in the
case OF Dr. Mcfarland. He believed il
would be Scandalous to admit the testimony
OF men so reckless as to form an opinion
and be willing to swear to il merely from
reading newspapers.
4 After considerable discussion by counsel,
which was interrupted BY Guiteau, Judge
D 4. - 81 fl,n 1,fa,gc
here stranger to the courts OF the District,
and even TO tie prisonerhlmsclf, and found
himself surrounded with difficulties from
the outset. The most serious difficulty was
that the odium attaching TO the aSsaSsina-
ton made witnesses unwilling to even allow
their names to be known to the defence.
Approaching III these difficulties which en-
barrasscd the defence, he (Judge Cox had
fell dispOsediO Offset them wiiha equal lgti-
tude and more than ordinary facilities
i'm the preparation OF their case. Evidence
OF insanity could not be offered in sure
butta. In his opinion The proof OF insanity
should be limited to the evidence in chief
OF the defence and the rebutting evidence
Of the prosecution. He therefore must eX-
clude tie evidence OF DR.. Mcfarland. The
testimony, however, OF those witnesses by
which the defence expected to prove that
the prisoner asserted upon the day OF the
assassination aud upon the day after the
motive for his act the Court held should be
admitted as evidence in surebuttal.
j. J. Brooks, chief Of the Treasury Sc
cret Service. was called. Witness visited
the prisoner at the Jail the night after the
shooting. Guitcau was in bed at the time.
He arose in great anger and excitement
said the witness, "and wanted TO know
what meant by disturbing his rest and
quiet at that hour Of the night. ] said if
in became him, murderer, to speak in
that manner; that hc had disturbed the
rest and quiet OF the whole nation. lie
came back at he that he was no murderer,
but Christian and gentleman; that his
mind was made up that he had been moved
TO do the act as 4 political necessity, and
that it was for the good OF the country"
Witness continued 81 told him was q
Republican and a Stalwart, and he replied
Then YOU can appreciate why did it,"
Witness detailed at some length his con-
versation at that time. He (witnesS) said
to the prisoner: "lf you had taken the
Deity into consideration you could not
have done such an act" Prisoner replied
that he had thought over the matter and
prayed over il for six weeks. and the more
he thought and the more he prayed, the
more he became convinced that the Presi-
dent must 90, and that il was bis duty to
remove him.
Notwithstanding his promise in The morn.
ing. Guitcau continued TO interrupt. and
became involved in an alteration with ore
OF the baliliS, who tried TO silence him.
"Tll slap you in the mouth" he frequently
snarlCd at him, but made no demonstration
OF carrying his threat into execution. At
another time he said TO him, You are no.
thing but u miserable undering, while
speak TO fifty millions OF people when |
talk"
When Judge Cox had finished his re-
marks upon Mr.. Scoylle's motion. Guitcau
insisted upon expressing his opinion.
That's first-class decision, Judge. That's
all | want to get before the Jury. what ]
said at that time relative 10 the causes that
impelcd me upon the President. As for
the rest, don't care a snap. ] would not
give fifty cents a buShel for this expert to-
timony. Ii ! had money enough | could
get fifty Of the best experts i'm the country
10 swear that / am as crazy rs 4 loon.
That's Just how much that kind Of evil
dcnce is worth"
Mr.. Scoyile introduced Il letter written
by the prisoners father in which he spoke
OF the prisoner, and expressed an opinion
that he was insane.
Guiteau called out, snoeringly: "WaS
the object OF reading that letter to show
that my father was crank, or that | am!
You are the biggest iackasS, Scoyille, ever
saw. Ii you can't learn any sense | shall
have to rebuke you in public"
The prosecution then submitted a state
ment OF the law points OH which they would
rely, as follows:
|. The legal test OF responsibility when
insanity is set up a. defence for alleged
crime is whether the accused, at the time
of committing the act charged, knew the
difference between right and wrong in re-
spect Of such an act.
Hence, in the present case, ii the accused,
at the time OF committing the act charged,
knew the difference between right and
wrong in respect Of such act-that is, ii he
knew what be was doing and that what be
was doing was contrary to the law OF the
land-he is responsible. [Guiteau: q
didn't, because my free agency was de-
stroyed."l
2. If the accused knew what he was do
ing, and that what he was doing was con-
trary to the law of the land, it constitutes
no defence, even If it were true that when
he committed the net he really believed
that he was thereby producing a public
benefit, or carrying out an inspiration Of
Divine origin or approval. such belief
would not afford any excuse. Nor would
such excuse be afforded 10y the fact that in
the commission of the act he was impellcd
by a depraved moral sense, whether innate
4