The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1882-01-28
GUITEAU.

The trial Of Guiteau, the assassin of Presi-
dent Garfield, terminated at Washington on
Wednesday, as most of our readers are already
doubtless aware, IN verdict of guilty OF muir
der in the first degree. The Jury, on whose
disagreement bets were made two to one but
the day before, deliberated but 10 minutes on
their verdict and unanimously agreed on the
first ballot
The closing speech of Judge Porter, which
occupied about day and half, was perhaps
ever uttered in any court of justice. 1t kept
Guiteau In constant state of excitement, and
there were no five minutes during the whole of
it in which he did not interrupt Porter with
That's false" That's a mean, dirty lie" &c,
sc. When others appealed to the court to
stop these interruptions, Judge Porter said 1t
was not necessary-they were no bother to
hlm--and he went on pouring his lava words
and burning Goals.
The speech of Guiteau, which he was allow
ed to make on Monday, was but repetition
of the speech he had published few days be-
fore in the newspapers, IN which he, claimed
to be patriot, having done what he did for
the good of America and under divine inspira-
ton. He closed by half maunderng, half
singing, the old song,
"Joha Browns body lies Wondering in the grave,
But his soul is marching on"
Putting IN with ludIcrous emphasis and ges.
ture the
"Glory, glory hallelujahw
When the verdict of the jury was announc
ed he said: "My blood Will be upon the heads
of that jury, and don't you forget it," The
audience shouted itself hoarse IN approval of
the conviction. Mr.. ScOville at once gave no.
tice of a motion for a new trial Gulteau said
God will avenge this outrage"
The trial has certainly been one of the most
remarkable in the history Of the jurisdiction
OF this or any other country. There was no
question about the fact of the murder, no de-
NAL of the prisoners guilt the only defense
attempted to be interposed was that of insanity
And the remarkable feature about it was, that
in the whole conduct of the trial, both by
court and counsel on both sides, the treatment
of the prisoner was such as assumed this in
sanity, and yet the success of the prosecution
rested on the pretended necessity to overcome
that assumption. Thus, II Gulteau was to be
treated as sane how could Judge Cox, or coun-
sci on either side, ignore his right to appear
In his own defence? yet that right, which he
constantly claimed, was practically, on all sides,
all through the trial, treated with profound
contempt. Then if he was to be regarded as
sane, on what theory could Judge Cox, viewing
HIM as prisonerln the dock charged with an
Infamous crime, permit him constantly to in
terrupt the proceedings, insult his own and
the opposite counsel and even openly defy
and insult the courts Such things could be
allowable in no court in the civilized world
except on the theory that the man was mad
Yet in the argument of the prosecution, in the
charge of the JGdge, and IN the verdict of the
Jury, il is solemnly averred that he Is no, now
and never was insane!
And the verdict is right. He was not insane
He was innately, constItutionally and thor.
oughly a bad man--irreclamably devillsh-
but he was not mad. Yet what commentary
is this on American Jurisprudence, that while
in the whole conduct Of the trial the insanity
of the man was virtually assumed, during the
same whole conduct the foregone conclusion
dominated that in the outcome the assumption
of insanity was to be ignored