Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-05-22
GUITEAUS APPEAL SET ASIDE.
DECISION OF THE COURT IN BANG.
JUDGE COX SUSTAINED, AID "A NEW TRIAL
DENIED.T

JUDGE COX SUSTAINED, kED "A NEW TRIAL
DENIED.
THE QUESTION OF JU1IsD1cr1oN, ETC,
UNANIMOUSLY DISPOSED OF.
The Circuit Court room was crowded this morn
ing In expectation of the deliyery OF the opinion
OF the court in the case OF the appeal OF Charles
j. Guteau convicted OF the assassination OF Presi-
dent Garfield, and sentenced to be hanged on the
30th Of June next The bor was crowded with
lawyers and the space outside the railing was
filled up with visitors. Atsten minutes past 10
O'Clock the Judges-Cartteri Macarthur, Hagner
and James-took their seats IN the bench. Judge
James had in his hand q handle of manuscripts
and a law book.
The Decialon.
After some business, such BIS usually meets the
court in the morning, had b(en transacted, Judge
James began the reading Of the decision in the
Guiteau case. After rectting the undisputed
facts Of the case, and the fact that the indictment
was founded on section 53@s, Revised Statutes,
providing the penalty of death for murder, the ar
gument for the defence ne said questioned the
$3.50 cited, was drawn from what was known as
the first crimes act passed atthe End session Of the
First Congress.
THE DISTRICT ON THE SAME rSoTrNG AS OTHER FED
ERAL TERRITORIES.
The constitution OF the Utited States had pro-
vided that Congress should Have power OF exclu-
sive legislation over the district which became
the seat Of government. 1he legislature in de-
fning as an offence againstthe United States had
stitution comforting legislative power The terms
OF the law indicate an intention to provide, so
dockyards, &C. but for the District where the
seat OF government was loefted II it were OBJ
jected that the government had at that time DO
such territory it would be slid also that it had
dockyards or magazines II It applied to forts and
dockyards not then existing It applied undoubt-
was accepted &C for the purpose Of seat Of Of govern govern
ment by an act passed only eleven weeks later
than the crimes act, SO thatits requirement must
OF the governmental was natural that Congress
should include the future seat Of government in
the act Apart from this there was no precedent
for excluding district 80 constituted from such
an act
AS TO CONTINUANCE OF MARYLAND LAW HERE
Referring to the provision contemplating that
Maryland law should continue in force bere under
certain restrictions he said that law and the stat
ute were not repugnant. II there had been any
doubt OF the force section 5a69 in this District
that doubt was removed by the act OF February
s ISL GSGdg Ing q
not locally 1napplicable, should be in force here.
The usual construction as totepeals here was that
1890 was therefore in force here, and upon this
conclusion rested an important question, as to
when murder could be held - hare been commit
ted here.
THE PLACE OF THl MURDER
The theory OF the contention Of the defence was
that murder could not be- held to have been
committed in a designated place unless both the
blow was struck and death occurred there: This
der. Was it a rule of the common law, that
murder was not committed IN a particular county,
fhn danf tn f1nr pnfxr ECro
solution of this question they must turn to the
higher authorities Of the common law and to the
Facts OF ntoy c ae to the
ssanty sTs
nor Of a blow in another county. The offence to
be provided for in this act was not new offence.
ae nud sne od o1v waa was a moi
stacle lay in the fact that the jury had not the
power to take cognizance OF an act in another
after the statute of Edward vi, In which it was
held that the jury had cognizance when the body
was brought back into The county where the blow
was struck, which showed not only that the OBJ
stacle lay In the limited powers Of the jury, but
that the murder was considered to have been COM
mitted where the felonions blow was struck. To
the point the opinion cited 7th OF Henry VII,
and other authorities OF the time. Whatever dif-
culty lay in the way OF an indictment or trial lay
In the inability OF the jury to take notice OF the
fact
The statement made by. Sir Robert Brooke,
OF the act OF Edward VI. recognizing the power of
the jury to find OF their own knowledge. The
power to act on personal knowledge fixed
was that determined whether it was prac-
tical to try felonies when fatal blow was
struck In one county N.Y. ana death h, ensged II
fact touching the power Of turies had been con-
founded with a definition of murder The opinion
opinion was that murderer might be indicted in
the county where the stroke was given. Chief
Justice Abbott had treated Hale as much higher
vi. Th& court thought it quite safe to have the
same confidence in Hales opinion OF this question
In this respect the common law had undergone
The opinion cited the recent English case of JAS
Hargrave. indicted for mansaughter, in which
blow which caused death constituted the felony.
The limitations OF cOgnZance regarding the jury
had no 70 application to the ures provided for by the
anachronlsms were adopted by the laws of the
United States The vicinage and all its survtvals
States. jury might be drawn from any place in
the district and could hear whatever was lawful
to prove; it was Joined to to the the court ana
THE COMMON LAW.
. The court had given careful attention to the
common law. II there were any doubt as to how
Congress intended to use the term murder, then
they held that the murder was committed here In
comon 10 law to have been commttsd whers g the the
blow was struck: Referring to the aspect of the
question from the standpoint OF the federal au-
thority, the opinion held that SO far as the COM
mands OF the law could be understood as original
terms, they must be construed independently of
the laws OF other countries In the law before
them the word murder was one Of which the
statute gave no definition The legislature, to that
extent at least had in mind the provisions OF for
eign law. This government had no common law
OF its own, nor any law but the constitu-
ton. II there had never been such
thing as common law ruling to
determine what murder was the statute itself
would be plain and sufficient. When the legtsla-
ture undertook to provide for the punishment OF
crime it could be assumed that the protection was
intended to be complete, &c their ordinary and
reasonable meaning permitted. such construc-
tiOn. The act designated IN this section $500
was murder, and the legislature must be under
stood to provide for all acts OF that nature COM
mitted within the places designated The question
was whether 1t was SO committed In the cOntem-
plation OF this statute and.not whether it was so
committed IN the contemplation OF the common
law. The plain and sensible construction was
that the act included all acts committed there,
which came within the definition OF murder. II
the act OF the offender achieves murder then that
act was murder, and the offender commits there
the act OF murder.