Sacramento daily record-union., 1882-01-19
scov111E's POLITICAL LINE OF DEFENSE,


and horror of Guiteau's atrocious deed, but
no sane person has ever believed that the
public men referred to were any more re.
sponsible for the assassination than q
speaker would be in political campaign
whose opponent should be killed by some
crazy fool. There was quarrel between
President Garfield and these politicians,
and they were in the wrong. The motives
which actnated them were such as the
country condemns but they were purely
political motives, and it is outrageous to
say that they should be held to share the
guilt of the assassin in any way. 1t may
be, and indeed has been said, and said
truly, that President Garfield probably
would not have been murdered had this
quarrel not occurred. But even this
is only a conjecture, and when we
consider the amount of misconstruction
which went to the formation of Guiteau's
purpose we cannot feel certain that such
man would not have found some equally
preposterous pretext for his crime. But
the fatal flaw in Scovilles position is that
from his standpoint it is not even plausible.
If he were denying Guiteau's insanity, and
basing the defense on the ground that the
course of Grant, Conkling, Arthur ct al.
had been such as to convince a sane person
that it would be an act of patriotism to
"remove Garfield, then it would be in
order for him to arraign them as he has
been doing, because it would then be pos
sible for him to make out a plausible case
on the theory that the eminence of
their position and the force of their argu-
ments overpowered the judgment of his
client, and caused him to adopt a
homicidal fallacy.
But the theory of Guiteau's insanity de-
prives the counsel's position of all cohe-
renee and nationality. He denounces the
Stalwarts, and for what? According to
his hypothesis, because lunatic, arguing
insanely, wholly misconceived their pur-
poses and the meaning of the situation
which they produced. And this is not
valid line to take. For it is evident
that no sane man or men can be considered
in any way accountable for the mental
vagaries of maniac. Nobody but Guiteau
ever believed that it was possible to "save
' the country" by assassinating the Presi-
dent. Nobody but Guiteau ever supposed
that such deed would be acceptable to
the Ssalwart" leaders. Nobody but
Guiteau evolved from the appointment of
Robertson and the resignation of Conkling
and Platt, the idea that the republic was
in danger. The kind of ratiocination re-
quired to produce such beliefs as these was
in short possible only to man whose
brain was diseased, and surely it is the
hight OF unreason to assert that when pub
lie men adopt policies they are bound to
select such only as can by no possibility
be open to Misrepresentation on the part of
lunatics.
Scoville, in fact, does not appear to have
determined in his own mind the question
of his clients mental condition. He de-
clares that his line OF defense is to be in
sanity, and yet he argues in manner
which would only be opposite if he held
the contrary position. On his own hy-
pothesis, that is to say, on the hypothesis
of Guiteau's insanity, the course of the
"Stalwarts can have no bearing upon the
case. For he is bound to hold that none
but madman would have reasoned and
acted as Guiteau did and what kind of
impeachment of the "Stalwart" policy is it
to say that none but madman could have
imbibed sinister suggestions from it? Mr..
Scoville appears to US to be injuring his
clients case very much by this wild and
irrational assault upon the "Stalwarts. !"
We can say this the more freely because
our readers know that we have condemned
their course throughout. Nor is it easy to
perceive what effect he expects this attack
to have upon the minds of the jury. They
know very well that Guiteau acted entirely
on nis own impulses. They know that
there was nothing in the policy of the
Stalwarts " to suggest assassination to a
sane mind. And they must consequently
perceive clearly enough that all this rant
and denunciation is foreign to the issue.
1t is somewhat curious that while SEQ.
vile abuses Grant, Arthur and Conkling,
his client declares them all to be his very
good friends. This position of Guiteau
is indeed quite easily explained on the
theory of his insanity, but it cannot be
explained on any other theory, and yet
Scoville, while declaring his client mad,
is discreditiDg the most cogent proofs
of his madness. We are almost inclined
to think that Guiteau is right in his belief
that he could have conducted his own case
better than his brother-in-law has con-
Quoted it. Scoville has managed to con.
fuse the principal issues in the most extra
ordinary manner, in fact, and his politi-
ia Ddu sdobC do ~ 10
inopportune. He can by no possibility
strengthen the theory Of insanity by at
tacking public men. He should remember
that he is not on the stump, but defending
man on trial for his life. So far as
Guiteau's chances are concerned we must
regard his cOunsel's latest expression as
baing most unfortunate, and as calculated
to diminish the respect which had been
elected by Mr.. Scoville's former conduct
of the case. And the most surprising and
most conspicuous feature of his political
line of argument is its utter irrelevancy.
GLADSTONE AND THE VATICAN.
It is almost certain that the recent
statement concerning Gladstone's alleged
negotiations with the Vatican is greatly
exaggerated. 1t would not be possible for